<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Extended limitation and anti-dumping duty demand quashed as conditions under Sections 28 and 114A not satisfied</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94488</link>
    <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal of M/s X against confirmation of anti-dumping duty, interest and penalty on import of injection moulding machines by invoking the extended limitation under s.28 of the Customs Act and penalty under s.114A. The Tribunal held that the statutory conditions for invoking s.114A and the extended period under s.28 are in pari materia and operate conjointly. Once the Commissioner (A) himself held that penalty under s.114A was not invocable, it necessarily followed that the requisite elements of fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement to trigger the extended period under s.28 were absent. Consequently, the extended limitation and resultant demand, interest and penalty were unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside to that extent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2025 08:55:41 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2025 08:55:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=867029" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Extended limitation and anti-dumping duty demand quashed as conditions under Sections 28 and 114A not satisfied</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94488</link>
      <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal of M/s X against confirmation of anti-dumping duty, interest and penalty on import of injection moulding machines by invoking the extended limitation under s.28 of the Customs Act and penalty under s.114A. The Tribunal held that the statutory conditions for invoking s.114A and the extended period under s.28 are in pari materia and operate conjointly. Once the Commissioner (A) himself held that penalty under s.114A was not invocable, it necessarily followed that the requisite elements of fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement to trigger the extended period under s.28 were absent. Consequently, the extended limitation and resultant demand, interest and penalty were unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside to that extent.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2025 08:55:41 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94488</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>