Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Mis-declaration of value, rejection of assessable value of seized goods, and liability for confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty u/s 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The differential customs duty on seized goods with altered MRP stickers was proposed to be recovered from the appellant, along with proportionate interest and appropriate penalty. The department wrongly invoked Rule 5 of Central Excise (Determination of Retail Sale Price of Excisable Goods) Rules 2008, which applies to manufacturers altering retail sale price after removal from the place of manufacture. However, the appellant is an importer, and the rule is inapplicable. The MRP sticker on imported goods matched the import declaration, and alteration occurred later in the domestic market. No evidence suggests the appellant altered the MRP or had knowledge of it. The department failed to prove any money flowed back to the appellant. The demand was confirmed based on presumptions and surmises. The evidence provided by the department, including invoices and font size similarities, was inadequate. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal held that the goods are not liable for confiscation u/s 111(m), and no circumstances warrant penalty imposition. The order under challenge was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Mis-declaration of value, rejection of assessable value of seized goods, and liability for confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty u/s 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The differential customs duty on seized goods with altered MRP stickers was proposed to be recovered from the appellant, along with proportionate interest and appropriate penalty. The department wrongly invoked Rule 5 of Central Excise (Determination of Retail Sale Price of Excisable Goods) Rules 2008, which applies to manufacturers altering retail sale price after removal from the place of manufacture. However, the appellant is an importer, and the rule is inapplicable. The MRP sticker on imported goods matched the import declaration, and alteration occurred later in the domestic market. No evidence suggests the appellant altered the MRP or had knowledge of it. The department failed to prove any money flowed back to the appellant. The demand was confirmed based on presumptions and surmises. The evidence provided by the department, including invoices and font size similarities, was inadequate. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal held that the goods are not liable for confiscation u/s 111(m), and no circumstances warrant penalty imposition. The order under challenge was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
