Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9201 to 9220 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside seizure, confiscation under s.111(d) of the Customs Act and the imposition of redemption fine and related penalty, holding that the importer acted with bona fide belief in declaring transaction value, responded to EDI queries and paid duties demanded under the DGFT notification while challenges to that notification were pending. The Tribunal found the matter to be one of reassessment of the bill of entry where no malafide or evasion was established and the adjudicating authority failed to record sufficient reasons for confiscation and redemption fine. Consequential orders imposing forfeiture and fines are quashed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside seizure, confiscation under s.111(d) of the Customs Act and the imposition of redemption fine and related penalty, holding that the importer acted with bona fide belief in declaring transaction value, responded to EDI queries and paid duties demanded under the DGFT notification while challenges to that notification were pending. The Tribunal found the matter to be one of reassessment of the bill of entry where no malafide or evasion was established and the adjudicating authority failed to record sufficient reasons for confiscation and redemption fine. Consequential orders imposing forfeiture and fines are quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
