https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363618 The extended limitation period under Section 28 of the Customs Act could not be invoked against transferees of DEPB licences where no collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or other culpable conduct was found against them. Although the licences were alleged to have been fraudulently obtained by the transferor, the transferees were not shown to be parties to that fraud, and a demand raised beyond the normal limitation period was therefore time-barred. The limitation-based rejection of the duty demands was upheld, and the Revenue's appeals failed. en-us Wed, 11 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jul 2018 08:07:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363618 The extended limitation period under Section 28 of the Customs Act could not be invoked against transferees of DEPB licences where no collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or other culpable conduct was found against them. Although the licences were alleged to have been fraudulently obtained by the transferor, the transferees were not shown to be parties to that fraud, and a demand raised beyond the normal limitation period was therefore time-barred. The limitation-based rejection of the duty demands was upheld, and the Revenue's appeals failed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 11 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363618