<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (7) TMI 1269 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775201</link>
    <description>CESTAT New Delhi ruled on a customs duty dispute involving imported ELISA test kits. The tribunal upheld denial of exemption notification benefits for food testing kits, following precedent in Ilishan Biotech case. However, the tribunal found that extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) was incorrectly invoked, as the appellant had properly declared goods as diagnostic kits in Bills of Entry without suppressing material facts. The Principal Commissioner failed to adequately examine whether suppression warranted extended limitation period, particularly given contrary findings in an earlier order on identical facts. Consequently, penalty under Section 114A was also set aside since grounds for penalty and extended limitation are identical. The appeal was partially allowed - duty confirmation for normal period was upheld, but extended period duty and penalty were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2025 08:25:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=837737" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 1269 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775201</link>
      <description>CESTAT New Delhi ruled on a customs duty dispute involving imported ELISA test kits. The tribunal upheld denial of exemption notification benefits for food testing kits, following precedent in Ilishan Biotech case. However, the tribunal found that extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) was incorrectly invoked, as the appellant had properly declared goods as diagnostic kits in Bills of Entry without suppressing material facts. The Principal Commissioner failed to adequately examine whether suppression warranted extended limitation period, particularly given contrary findings in an earlier order on identical facts. Consequently, penalty under Section 114A was also set aside since grounds for penalty and extended limitation are identical. The appeal was partially allowed - duty confirmation for normal period was upheld, but extended period duty and penalty were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775201</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>