Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. It held that valuation could not be on transaction value under s.4(1)(a) as removals were stock transfers; valuation fell under s.4(1)(b) read with Rule 7. Discounts known at or before removal, whether via invoice or post-clearance credit notes, qualified as permissible deductions from assessable value where genuinely passed to buyers, supported by ledgers and policies. The departmental disallowance of such discounts and consequent differential duty demand was unsustainable; interest on those disallowed demands was not exigible. Payments of differential duty with interest voluntarily made by the Appellant were considered non-refundable. Appeal allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. It held that valuation could not be on transaction value under s.4(1)(a) as removals were stock transfers; valuation fell under s.4(1)(b) read with Rule 7. Discounts known at or before removal, whether via invoice or post-clearance credit notes, qualified as permissible deductions from assessable value where genuinely passed to buyers, supported by ledgers and policies. The departmental disallowance of such discounts and consequent differential duty demand was unsustainable; interest on those disallowed demands was not exigible. Payments of differential duty with interest voluntarily made by the Appellant were considered non-refundable. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
