TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Extended limitation under Section 28(1) fails as burden of proof unmet in Patchouli Oil undervaluation case</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Central Excise And Service Tax Versus M/s. Vishal Enterprise.</h3> SC upheld the CESTAT order exonerating the importer from allegations of mis-declaration and undervaluation of Patchouli Oil PS 24. It was affirmed that ... Mis-declaration of imported goods described as Patchouli Oil PS 24 (natural essential oil) - it was held by CESTAT that the Department had failed to discharge the burden of proving mis-declaration and undervaluation; consequently, the demand of differential duty under Section 28(1) by invoking extended limitation was not legally sustainable - HELD THAT:- There are no good ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, Civil Appeals stands dismissed. The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the civil appeals, stating, 'Delay condoned.' The appeals challenged a High Court order that had relied on the decision in *M/s. Skypack Commissioner Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata*, decided by CESTAT, Kolkata, under final Order Nos. 75558-75559 of 2024 dated 21.03.2024 in Customs Appeal No. 70021 of 2013. The Court noted that the CESTAT judgment relied upon by the High Court 'has attained finality.' Upon hearing counsel for the appellant, the Court held that there was 'no good ground to interfere with the impugned order' of the High Court. Consequently, the civil appeals were dismissed, thereby affirming the High Court's reliance on the final CESTAT decision. The Court further directed that all pending applications, if any, 'shall stand disposed of.'
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
