Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of CESTAT Chennai addressed undervaluation of imported glass sheets. The revenue invoked an extended period of limitation due to significant discrepancies in declared value vs. contemporaneous imports. However, the tribunal held that for such an extension, fraud or willful misstatement must be proven. The revenue failed to provide concrete evidence justifying rejection of declared value u/r 3 of Customs Valuation Rules. No incriminating documents were found during investigation. The revenue's case based on comparable imports lacked merit as no comparable cases were identified. The tribunal set aside the demand, impugned order, and penalties, granting appeal with consequential benefits.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
