https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91519 The CESTAT held that the extended period of limitation for recovery of export benefit demands under the Act of 1962 cannot be invoked as all relevant facts were known to the department when the first show cause notice (SCN) was issued. The issuance of multiple SCNs for the same period and products by different wings of the Customs department was impermissible, rendering the second SCN invalid. The charge of suppression of facts against the appellants was unsustainable, given the departmental divergence on product classification and lack of clarity. Furthermore, since the DGFT had not cancelled the MEIS scrips, Customs lacked jurisdiction to deny benefits or reclassify goods. Consequently, the impugned order confirming demands was set aside on grounds of limitation and jurisdiction, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Wed, 13 Aug 2025 07:27:37 +0530 Wed, 13 Aug 2025 07:27:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91519 The CESTAT held that the extended period of limitation for recovery of export benefit demands under the Act of 1962 cannot be invoked as all relevant facts were known to the department when the first show cause notice (SCN) was issued. The issuance of multiple SCNs for the same period and products by different wings of the Customs department was impermissible, rendering the second SCN invalid. The charge of suppression of facts against the appellants was unsustainable, given the departmental divergence on product classification and lack of clarity. Furthermore, since the DGFT had not cancelled the MEIS scrips, Customs lacked jurisdiction to deny benefits or reclassify goods. Consequently, the impugned order confirming demands was set aside on grounds of limitation and jurisdiction, and the appeal was allowed. Highlights Customs Wed, 13 Aug 2025 07:27:37 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91519