Tax determination against deceased proprietor invalid where no notice to legal representative; appeal rejected without addressing jurisdictional defec...
Revocation of GST registration and permission to file blocked returns; conditional defreezing of bank accounts after security and instalment applicati...
Right to access seized electronic evidence: impugned adjudication treated as additional show cause notice, remand for fresh hearing and return of mate...
Revisability of return invalidation communications under tax procedure affirmed, impugned non revisional finding quashed and matter remitted for fresh...
Imported goods were found, on examination and CRCL testing, to be polyester filament yarn fabric though declared as viscose polyamide woven fabric; the importer did not dispute the mis-declaration and accepted re-classification and consequent re-assessment, so reclassification was sustained. Since the invoice related to different goods, the proper officer had reasonable doubt under Rule 12 to reject the declared transaction value; as no supporting evidence was produced, value was correctly re-determined under the sequential rules using contemporaneous import data of similar goods, and differential duty was sustained. Mis-declaration attracted confiscation under s.111(m); redemption fine at about 10% of value was upheld, and mandatory penalty equal to duty under s.114A was affirmed; appeal dismissed. - CESTAT
Imported goods were found, on examination and CRCL testing, to be polyester filament yarn fabric though declared as viscose polyamide woven fabric; the importer did not dispute the mis-declaration and accepted re-classification and consequent re-assessment, so reclassification was sustained. Since the invoice related to different goods, the proper officer had reasonable doubt under Rule 12 to reject the declared transaction value; as no supporting evidence was produced, value was correctly re-determined under the sequential rules using contemporaneous import data of similar goods, and differential duty was sustained. Mis-declaration attracted confiscation under s.111(m); redemption fine at about 10% of value was upheld, and mandatory penalty equal to duty under s.114A was affirmed; appeal dismissed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
