https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427500 Madras HC held that the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 28 of the Customs Act could not be invoked against a bona fide subsequent purchaser of DEPB scrips. The purchaser had bought the scrips for value after departmental endorsement, with no allegation of collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression against it. The alleged fraud was confined to the original exporter's procurement of the scrips through forged bank realisation certificates, and that third-party fraud was insufficient to reopen customs demand against a transferee without notice or participation. The show cause notices were therefore quashed. en-us Mon, 11 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Sep 2022 07:03:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427500 Madras HC held that the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 28 of the Customs Act could not be invoked against a bona fide subsequent purchaser of DEPB scrips. The purchaser had bought the scrips for value after departmental endorsement, with no allegation of collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression against it. The alleged fraud was confined to the original exporter's procurement of the scrips through forged bank realisation certificates, and that third-party fraud was insufficient to reopen customs demand against a transferee without notice or participation. The show cause notices were therefore quashed. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 11 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427500