https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782100 CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the demand of anti-dumping duty, interest, and penalty raised by invoking the extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that the legal requirements for invoking the extended limitation period under Section 28 and for imposing penalty under Section 114A are identical. Since the Commissioner (Appeals) himself found that penalty under Section 114A was not sustainable, it necessarily followed that the extended period was not invocable. Consequently, the demand based on the extended period failed. en-us Thu, 01 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Nov 2025 17:52:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782100 CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the demand of anti-dumping duty, interest, and penalty raised by invoking the extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that the legal requirements for invoking the extended limitation period under Section 28 and for imposing penalty under Section 114A are identical. Since the Commissioner (Appeals) himself found that penalty under Section 114A was not sustainable, it necessarily followed that the extended period was not invocable. Consequently, the demand based on the extended period failed. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 01 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782100