Classification of imported salvaged shaft pieces as ship parts confirmed, reassessment time-barred and appeal allowed restoring original classificatio...
Scope of intermediary status for data hosting services: tribunal finds provider not intermediary, services exported and not taxable, limited remand on...
CENVAT credit availability after omission of Rule 12B in textiles confirmed; late addendum to SCN introducing new grounds held time-barred and invalid...
Export of Wheat Flour and related products subject to online allocation, eligibility criteria, non-transferable six-month authorisations and reporting...
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 4816 
Join Channel 
