https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764206 The court set aside the demand for differential duty, ruling that the extended period for such a demand under the Customs Act, 1962, was improperly invoked. The court found no evidence of mis-declaration or suppression by the appellant, emphasizing that such an extended period requires clear evidence of intent to evade duty, not merely an interpretative dispute. The appeal was allowed, focusing on the limitation issue rather than the merits of the goods' classification under the Customs Tariff Heading and Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. en-us Mon, 06 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Jan 2025 13:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764206 The court set aside the demand for differential duty, ruling that the extended period for such a demand under the Customs Act, 1962, was improperly invoked. The court found no evidence of mis-declaration or suppression by the appellant, emphasizing that such an extended period requires clear evidence of intent to evade duty, not merely an interpretative dispute. The appeal was allowed, focusing on the limitation issue rather than the merits of the goods' classification under the Customs Tariff Heading and Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 06 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764206