<?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>2026 (1) TMI 535 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784779</link>
    <description>The dominant issues were whether the goods could be reclassified from parts of lifts/escalators under CTH 8431, whether extended limitation under s.28(4) Customs Act was invocable, and whether the adjudicating authority had jurisdiction over imports assessed outside its territorial limits. The Tribunal held that Revenue failed to adduce evidence contradicting the importer&#039;s declarations vis-à-vis supplier documents/certificate of origin or past undisputed practice; absence of mala fides barred extended limitation, so only the normal period could apply. It further held the adjudicating authority lacked jurisdiction to confirm demands for imports assessed outside its territorial jurisdiction, rendering those demands void ab initio. Reclassification and differential duty (with interest) were sustained only for door locks, for the normal period, and only for imports within jurisdiction; all other demands, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2026 12:47:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=877582" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 535 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784779</link>
      <description>The dominant issues were whether the goods could be reclassified from parts of lifts/escalators under CTH 8431, whether extended limitation under s.28(4) Customs Act was invocable, and whether the adjudicating authority had jurisdiction over imports assessed outside its territorial limits. The Tribunal held that Revenue failed to adduce evidence contradicting the importer&#039;s declarations vis-à-vis supplier documents/certificate of origin or past undisputed practice; absence of mala fides barred extended limitation, so only the normal period could apply. It further held the adjudicating authority lacked jurisdiction to confirm demands for imports assessed outside its territorial jurisdiction, rendering those demands void ab initio. Reclassification and differential duty (with interest) were sustained only for door locks, for the normal period, and only for imports within jurisdiction; all other demands, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784779</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>