https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775203 The CESTAT New Delhi set aside a penalty imposed under section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant had classified imported goods according to their understanding, which differed from DRI's classification during investigation. Upon review, the appellant accepted DRI's classification and paid full differential duty with interest. The Revenue alleged willful mis-classification to evade duty and invoked extended limitation period under section 28(2). The CESTAT held that section 28(2) applies only when duty evasion involves collusion or willful mis-statement/suppression of facts. Here, it was merely a classification interpretation issue, not willful mis-declaration. The Commissioner erred in issuing the SCN invoking extended limitation period. Since the appellant paid full duty with interest, section 28(2) mandates that "proper officer shall not serve any notice." The SCN was therefore contrary to law. The demand would fall under section 28(1), and the appellant cannot claim refund of duty or interest already paid. en-us Mon, 21 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Jul 2025 08:25:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775203 The CESTAT New Delhi set aside a penalty imposed under section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant had classified imported goods according to their understanding, which differed from DRI's classification during investigation. Upon review, the appellant accepted DRI's classification and paid full differential duty with interest. The Revenue alleged willful mis-classification to evade duty and invoked extended limitation period under section 28(2). The CESTAT held that section 28(2) applies only when duty evasion involves collusion or willful mis-statement/suppression of facts. Here, it was merely a classification interpretation issue, not willful mis-declaration. The Commissioner erred in issuing the SCN invoking extended limitation period. Since the appellant paid full duty with interest, section 28(2) mandates that "proper officer shall not serve any notice." The SCN was therefore contrary to law. The demand would fall under section 28(1), and the appellant cannot claim refund of duty or interest already paid. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 21 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775203