https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782850 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding the impugned order unsustainable as the second SCN was wholly barred by limitation. The appellant had consistently declared and classified its product as "Lauric Acid" under a specific tariff, and the first SCN, though covering earlier bills of entry, did not allege wilful suppression or misstatement nor invoke Section 28(4) of the Customs Act to extend limitation. The subsequent realisation by Revenue and issuance of the second SCN to cure this omission was held impermissible. Relying on the principle in Nizam Sugars, the Tribunal set aside the demand and refrained from examining other issues. en-us Thu, 04 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Dec 2025 08:12:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782850 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding the impugned order unsustainable as the second SCN was wholly barred by limitation. The appellant had consistently declared and classified its product as "Lauric Acid" under a specific tariff, and the first SCN, though covering earlier bills of entry, did not allege wilful suppression or misstatement nor invoke Section 28(4) of the Customs Act to extend limitation. The subsequent realisation by Revenue and issuance of the second SCN to cure this omission was held impermissible. Relying on the principle in Nizam Sugars, the Tribunal set aside the demand and refrained from examining other issues. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 04 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782850