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...
The HC allowed the revenue's appeal, set aside the CESTAT order and upheld the orders of the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals), denying preferential tariff relief. The court held that entitlement under N/N.46/2011-Cus. requires a valid certificate of origin conforming to AIFTA Rules and that the importer bears the evidentiary burden. The AIFTA certificates were held unreliable: shipping records showed departure on 31.03.2014 while the invoices were dated 23.05.2014, and the certificate misidentified the third-party supplier, demonstrating material discrepancies that undermined authenticity. Tallying of quantities and vessel particulars could not substitute for a bona fide certificate; exemption therefore could not be granted.
The HC allowed the revenue's appeal, set aside the CESTAT order and upheld the orders of the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals), denying preferential tariff relief. The court held that entitlement under N/N.46/2011-Cus. requires a valid certificate of origin conforming to AIFTA Rules and that the importer bears the evidentiary burden. The AIFTA certificates were held unreliable: shipping records showed departure on 31.03.2014 while the invoices were dated 23.05.2014, and the certificate misidentified the third-party supplier, demonstrating material discrepancies that undermined authenticity. Tallying of quantities and vessel particulars could not substitute for a bona fide certificate; exemption therefore could not be granted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.