Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Tribunal held that the transaction value declared by the appellant could not be rejected on the basis of unrelated pro forma invoices and uncorroborated statements; consequently reassessment and enhanced valuation were unsustainable. Differential duty demands in respect of blankets were quashed for lack of contemporaneous corroborative evidence. Orders of confiscation and redemption fines were revoked. Invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 28 and imposition of penalties under Sections 112 and 114A were held unwarranted for want of requisite suppression, misdeclaration or intent, and those penalties were set aside. Appeal disposed accordingly.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Tribunal held that the transaction value declared by the appellant could not be rejected on the basis of unrelated pro forma invoices and uncorroborated statements; consequently reassessment and enhanced valuation were unsustainable. Differential duty demands in respect of blankets were quashed for lack of contemporaneous corroborative evidence. Orders of confiscation and redemption fines were revoked. Invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 28 and imposition of penalties under Sections 112 and 114A were held unwarranted for want of requisite suppression, misdeclaration or intent, and those penalties were set aside. Appeal disposed accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
