https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325803 The Tribunal held in favor of the appellant on all issues: 1. The time-barred demand of duty amount was rejected as the notice was beyond the limitation period without fraud allegations. 2. The appellant, as a transferor, was not liable for import duty as they were not the importer. 3. The burden of proof on non-availment of modvat credit on inputs rested with the Revenue, which failed to establish it. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. en-us Wed, 09 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325803 The Tribunal held in favor of the appellant on all issues: 1. The time-barred demand of duty amount was rejected as the notice was beyond the limitation period without fraud allegations. 2. The appellant, as a transferor, was not liable for import duty as they were not the importer. 3. The burden of proof on non-availment of modvat credit on inputs rested with the Revenue, which failed to establish it. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 09 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325803