TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (7) TMI 717
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Respondent. [Order per : Justice K.K. Usha, President]. - The issue on which there was difference of opinion between the Members has been answered by the Larger Bench under order dated 1-4-2002. Following the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi v. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. - 2001 (133) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) it was held that the goods imported by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... owner importer in India knew fully well as to how important and valuable these goods were, it would clearly amount to wilful mis-statement and suppression, attracting extended period of limitation for demand of differential duty. We, therefore, hold that in the facts of the present case, the Customs authorities were fully justified in invoking the extended period. 3. It was then pointed out....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngs, designs and documents for the purpose for which technical collaboration agreement was entered into. The agreement was in respect of establishing a unit for manufacture of apparel. The investigation was started only in the year 1997 and the show cause notice issued on 24-6-98. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that it is not a fit case for imposing redemption fine. 4. Now com....