https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782707 CESTAT allowed the appeal. It held that the imported LED lighting fixtures were correctly classifiable under CTH 9405 and, therefore, not eligible for the concessional duty benefit under N/N 50/2017, as amended by N/N 92/2017. However, the Tribunal found that Revenue was fully aware of the nature and classification of the imports, as higher duty was initially paid and later refunded and concessional duty was thereafter extended by the Department itself. In these circumstances, there was no suppression or misdeclaration to justify invocation of the extended limitation period. Consequently, the duty demand beyond the normal period, confiscation, fine and penalties were set aside. en-us Wed, 19 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Dec 2025 08:57:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782707 CESTAT allowed the appeal. It held that the imported LED lighting fixtures were correctly classifiable under CTH 9405 and, therefore, not eligible for the concessional duty benefit under N/N 50/2017, as amended by N/N 92/2017. However, the Tribunal found that Revenue was fully aware of the nature and classification of the imports, as higher duty was initially paid and later refunded and concessional duty was thereafter extended by the Department itself. In these circumstances, there was no suppression or misdeclaration to justify invocation of the extended limitation period. Consequently, the duty demand beyond the normal period, confiscation, fine and penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 19 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782707