Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2161 to 2180 of 96140 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
In the case before CESTAT Bangalore, the issue revolved around mis-declaration of import value, duty demand, confiscation of goods, and penalty imposition. The appellant, a 100% EOU providing software development services, imported a semi-conductor fabrication system. The appellant declared the value based on the supplier's proforma invoice, which was later found to be undervalued due to the goods being used. The Chartered Engineer enhanced the value, impacting the export obligation. The tribunal held that there was no intentional mis-declaration or suppression by the appellant, as the declared value was based on the proforma invoice. Consequently, the confiscation order and penalty imposed under section 112(a)(ii) were set aside.
In the case before CESTAT Bangalore, the issue revolved around mis-declaration of import value, duty demand, confiscation of goods, and penalty imposition. The appellant, a 100% EOU providing software development services, imported a semi-conductor fabrication system. The appellant declared the value based on the supplier's proforma invoice, which was later found to be undervalued due to the goods being used. The Chartered Engineer enhanced the value, impacting the export obligation. The tribunal held that there was no intentional mis-declaration or suppression by the appellant, as the declared value was based on the proforma invoice. Consequently, the confiscation order and penalty imposed under section 112(a)(ii) were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
