https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781645 CESTAT KOL upheld the appeal, finding the Department failed to discharge the onus to reclassify exported goods; a departmental CRCL report was ignored without valid reason. The goods were held classifiable under Tariff Item 29319090 (as claimed by the exporter) and not under 29313900. Because DGFT had not cancelled the MEIS scrips (most remained active and cancellation proceedings were unadjudicated), Customs' recovery demand premised on misclassification was unsustainable. No suppression or wilful mis-statement was established, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. en-us Thu, 10 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Nov 2025 08:52:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781645 CESTAT KOL upheld the appeal, finding the Department failed to discharge the onus to reclassify exported goods; a departmental CRCL report was ignored without valid reason. The goods were held classifiable under Tariff Item 29319090 (as claimed by the exporter) and not under 29313900. Because DGFT had not cancelled the MEIS scrips (most remained active and cancellation proceedings were unadjudicated), Customs' recovery demand premised on misclassification was unsustainable. No suppression or wilful mis-statement was established, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 10 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781645