https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775993 The HC held that the respondent authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the SCN under the extended limitation period as there was no collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts by the petitioners. The petitioners, having legitimately purchased DEPB licenses from the open market and paid consideration for imports without duty evasion, were not liable. The demand raised was below the threshold for challenging before CESTAT, and prior orders in favor of the petitioners remained effective. Consequently, the SCN dated 27.8.2002 was quashed and set aside, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Wed, 23 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Aug 2025 08:28:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775993 The HC held that the respondent authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the SCN under the extended limitation period as there was no collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts by the petitioners. The petitioners, having legitimately purchased DEPB licenses from the open market and paid consideration for imports without duty evasion, were not liable. The demand raised was below the threshold for challenging before CESTAT, and prior orders in favor of the petitioners remained effective. Consequently, the SCN dated 27.8.2002 was quashed and set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 23 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775993