https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386976 The Tribunal determined that the imported goods were correctly classifiable under CTH 392410 and not CTH 392490, thus denying the appellant the benefit of exemption under Notification No 46/2011-Cus. The invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) was deemed unjustified as there was no misdeclaration with intent to evade duty. The goods were found not liable for confiscation under Sections 111(m) and 111(o), leading to the setting aside of imposed penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114A. The Tribunal remanded the matter for redetermination within the normal limitation period. en-us Thu, 10 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Mar 2020 11:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386976 The Tribunal determined that the imported goods were correctly classifiable under CTH 392410 and not CTH 392490, thus denying the appellant the benefit of exemption under Notification No 46/2011-Cus. The invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) was deemed unjustified as there was no misdeclaration with intent to evade duty. The goods were found not liable for confiscation under Sections 111(m) and 111(o), leading to the setting aside of imposed penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114A. The Tribunal remanded the matter for redetermination within the normal limitation period. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 10 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386976