https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776540 The CESTAT Mumbai held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked as the department was aware of all facts when the first SCN was issued, and issuing multiple SCNs for the same period and products is impermissible. The charge of suppression of facts against the appellants was rejected, given conflicting classification views by different customs wings and the absence of wilful misstatement. Further, since the DGFT had not cancelled the MEIS scrips, customs authorities lacked jurisdiction to deny benefits or reclassify goods. Consequently, the impugned order confirming demands was set aside on grounds of limitation and merit, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Fri, 08 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Aug 2025 07:27:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776540 The CESTAT Mumbai held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked as the department was aware of all facts when the first SCN was issued, and issuing multiple SCNs for the same period and products is impermissible. The charge of suppression of facts against the appellants was rejected, given conflicting classification views by different customs wings and the absence of wilful misstatement. Further, since the DGFT had not cancelled the MEIS scrips, customs authorities lacked jurisdiction to deny benefits or reclassify goods. Consequently, the impugned order confirming demands was set aside on grounds of limitation and merit, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 08 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776540