CESTAT Chennai held the extended period under Section 73(1) Finance Act 1994 cannot be invoked where alleged suppression is interpretational, allowing Faiveley.
Valkya Editorial··7 min
TribunalCustoms, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi
CESTAT Delhi quashed a customs duty demand on Bharti Airtel, holding imported router components are 'parts' under CTI 8517 70 90 and rejecting limitation.
On 21 November 2025, the Supreme Court stayed proceedings in GR Infra Projects Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, prima facie holding that a show-cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act that sets out only figures, without a factual narration of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression, is legally deficient. The order has shaped the High Court line on Section 74 and, by extension, on Section 74A — which now governs the extended-limitation regime from 1 April 2024 — and reaffirms the jurisdictional-fact doctrine for the extended-limitation framework.