https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445182 Suppression or misdeclaration was not proved where EPCG and SHIS licences had been issued before 05.06.2012, when para 4B of ANF 5A did not yet require an undertaking, and the bar on simultaneous benefit of the two schemes was introduced only later. The applications had been filed before that change, and the public notice relied on by the original authority did not establish deliberate concealment. The record instead indicated a bona fide error in the grant of both benefits, so the foundation for invoking the extended period of limitation was absent. Recovery of customs duty on that basis therefore failed, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 31 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Apr 2024 11:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445182 Suppression or misdeclaration was not proved where EPCG and SHIS licences had been issued before 05.06.2012, when para 4B of ANF 5A did not yet require an undertaking, and the bar on simultaneous benefit of the two schemes was introduced only later. The applications had been filed before that change, and the public notice relied on by the original authority did not establish deliberate concealment. The record instead indicated a bona fide error in the grant of both benefits, so the foundation for invoking the extended period of limitation was absent. Recovery of customs duty on that basis therefore failed, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 31 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445182