Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
Extended limitation under the proviso to section 28(1) of the Customs Act was held inapplicable to the differential duty demand because the imports were cleared in 2007-08 without valuation objection, and the investigation commenced nearly three years later without evidence of wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade duty. A statement recorded under section 108 admitting undervaluation and willingness to pay differential duty was treated as insufficient and not determinative, and mere undervaluation, absent material showing intent to evade, cannot justify the extended period. Consequently, the demand and valuation redetermination order were set aside and the appeal was allowed. - CESTAT
Extended limitation under the proviso to section 28(1) of the Customs Act was held inapplicable to the differential duty demand because the imports were cleared in 2007-08 without valuation objection, and the investigation commenced nearly three years later without evidence of wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade duty. A statement recorded under section 108 admitting undervaluation and willingness to pay differential duty was treated as insufficient and not determinative, and mere undervaluation, absent material showing intent to evade, cannot justify the extended period. Consequently, the demand and valuation redetermination order were set aside and the appeal was allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
