https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753228 CESTAT Bangalore allowed appeals challenging show-cause notices for duty demand on capital goods destroyed by villagers and cleared as scrap. The tribunal held that since the appellant had properly intimated authorities about riots and obtained necessary permissions for de-bonding burnt goods per customs procedures, there was no suppression of facts warranting extended limitation period under Section 28(1)/28(4) of Customs Act, 1962. Commissioner (A) erred in confirming demand under Section 72(1) when original show-cause notice was under different sections, violating principle that orders cannot traverse beyond show-cause notice scope. Appeals allowed, impugned orders set aside. en-us Fri, 12 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 May 2024 21:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753228 CESTAT Bangalore allowed appeals challenging show-cause notices for duty demand on capital goods destroyed by villagers and cleared as scrap. The tribunal held that since the appellant had properly intimated authorities about riots and obtained necessary permissions for de-bonding burnt goods per customs procedures, there was no suppression of facts warranting extended limitation period under Section 28(1)/28(4) of Customs Act, 1962. Commissioner (A) erred in confirming demand under Section 72(1) when original show-cause notice was under different sections, violating principle that orders cannot traverse beyond show-cause notice scope. Appeals allowed, impugned orders set aside. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 12 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753228