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 held that Revenue failed to comply with the mandatory notice requirement under s.28(6) of the Customs Act, 1962, and did not establish suppression or mens rea "with intent to evade duty" sufficient to invoke the extended period of limitation. The SCN issued beyond the normal assessment period and relied solely on alleged mis-declaration without the requisite statutory conditions to trigger s.28. Consequently the extended limitation could not be invoked, the demand premised on the larger limitation period was set aside, and the impugned order was quashed. The appeals filed by the Appellant/Importer were allowed with consequential benefits as per law.
CESTAT held that Revenue failed to comply with the mandatory notice requirement under s.28(6) of the Customs Act, 1962, and did not establish suppression or mens rea "with intent to evade duty" sufficient to invoke the extended period of limitation. The SCN issued beyond the normal assessment period and relied solely on alleged mis-declaration without the requisite statutory conditions to trigger s.28. Consequently the extended limitation could not be invoked, the demand premised on the larger limitation period was set aside, and the impugned order was quashed. The appeals filed by the Appellant/Importer were allowed with consequential benefits as per law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
