Introducing the βIn Favour Ofβ filter in Case Laws.
- βοΈ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- π Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws β


Just a moment...
Introducing the βIn Favour Ofβ filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws β


Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
The appellant had furnished all relevant documents, including inspection certificates, test certificates containing composition of alloys, and invoices, along with the Bills of Entry. The correct classification of goods was arrived at by DRI based on these submitted documents. The goods were not mis-declared, and the declarations in the Bills of Entry were as per the invoices. Even in the statement recorded by DRI, it was stated that the same goods were procured indigenously, and Indian manufacturers also classified them under the same heading as declared in the Bills of Entry, which was not controverted by the department. Therefore, the charge of mis-declaration and suppression of facts fails. Since the onus of assessment was on the department and the appellant had submitted the necessary documents, they cannot be held responsible for suggesting a certain classification heading in the Bill of Entry. The demand has to be restricted to the normal period, and the penalty needs to be set aside. The impugned order is modified accordingly.