https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761156 The Madras HC dismissed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice issued under Section 28 of the Customs Act invoking extended limitation period. The petitioner imported telecommunication equipment and self-assessed customs duty under CTH 8517 over four years. The court held that the Principal Commissioner had jurisdiction to issue the notice as Section 28 empowers determination of duty and interest without requiring assessment reopening. Regarding extended limitation, while the petitioner argued wilful misstatement couldn't be established, the court found detailed factual examination inappropriate at preliminary stage. The notice contained specific allegations of suppression and misstatement across multiple bills of entry. The court granted one month for petitioner's response to the show cause notice. en-us Wed, 30 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Nov 2024 17:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761156 The Madras HC dismissed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice issued under Section 28 of the Customs Act invoking extended limitation period. The petitioner imported telecommunication equipment and self-assessed customs duty under CTH 8517 over four years. The court held that the Principal Commissioner had jurisdiction to issue the notice as Section 28 empowers determination of duty and interest without requiring assessment reopening. Regarding extended limitation, while the petitioner argued wilful misstatement couldn't be established, the court found detailed factual examination inappropriate at preliminary stage. The notice contained specific allegations of suppression and misstatement across multiple bills of entry. The court granted one month for petitioner's response to the show cause notice. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 30 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761156