https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98730 CESTAT reiterated that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked where the department already knew of the exports and MEIS benefit claims from an earlier show cause notice on the same products and period; suppression and wilful misstatement were therefore not made out. It also held that customs could not deny or recover MEIS benefits while the scrips remained uncancelled, since DGFT had not completed cancellation proceedings. On both limitation and merits, the impugned demand and recovery action were unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. en-us Mon, 13 Apr 2026 07:52:35 +0530 Mon, 13 Apr 2026 07:52:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98730 CESTAT reiterated that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked where the department already knew of the exports and MEIS benefit claims from an earlier show cause notice on the same products and period; suppression and wilful misstatement were therefore not made out. It also held that customs could not deny or recover MEIS benefits while the scrips remained uncancelled, since DGFT had not completed cancellation proceedings. On both limitation and merits, the impugned demand and recovery action were unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. Highlights Customs Mon, 13 Apr 2026 07:52:35 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98730