Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
CESTAT dismisses the appeal and upholds reassessment and...
Appeal dismissed; reassessment and penalties upheld for deliberate RSP mis-declaration; valuation redetermined under Rules 5,7,12; s28(4) and ss114A/114AA affirmed
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
CESTAT dismisses the appeal and upholds reassessment and penalties. The Tribunal found deliberate mis-declaration of RSP on Bills of Entry, contrasted with recovered tags showing an RSP approximately ten times higher; the declared assessable value was rejected under Rule 12 and re-determined under Rules 5 and 7 of the Valuation Rules. The revenue validly invoked extended limitation under suppression of facts and confirmed demand under section 28(4). Penalties under sections 114A and 114AA were lawfully imposed for willful misstatement/suppression and short levy, given post-clearance affixation of correct price tags did not constitute manufacture rendering the original declaration bona fide. The impugned order is affirmed; appeal dismissed.
CESTAT dismisses the appeal and upholds reassessment and penalties. The Tribunal found deliberate mis-declaration of RSP on Bills of Entry, contrasted with recovered tags showing an RSP approximately ten times higher; the declared assessable value was rejected under Rule 12 and re-determined under Rules 5 and 7 of the Valuation Rules. The revenue validly invoked extended limitation under suppression of facts and confirmed demand under section 28(4). Penalties under sections 114A and 114AA were lawfully imposed for willful misstatement/suppression and short levy, given post-clearance affixation of correct price tags did not constitute manufacture rendering the original declaration bona fide. The impugned order is affirmed; appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.