https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464268 CESTAT upheld the adjudication, dismissing the appeal and confirming demands. The Tribunal found appellants had repeatedly declared fibres under tariff 8544 7090 but concealed that their OFC were not individually sheathed and thus ineligible for the notification dated 01.03.2005; this suppression justified invocation of the extended limitation period. The authority's invocation of Section 28 and Rule 8 of IGCR, 1996 was held proper given bonds submitted at import and the correct classification of the goods under heading 9001. No infirmity was found in confirming the adjudged duty and interest. en-us Mon, 19 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Oct 2025 20:49:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464268 CESTAT upheld the adjudication, dismissing the appeal and confirming demands. The Tribunal found appellants had repeatedly declared fibres under tariff 8544 7090 but concealed that their OFC were not individually sheathed and thus ineligible for the notification dated 01.03.2005; this suppression justified invocation of the extended limitation period. The authority's invocation of Section 28 and Rule 8 of IGCR, 1996 was held proper given bonds submitted at import and the correct classification of the goods under heading 9001. No infirmity was found in confirming the adjudged duty and interest. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 19 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464268