Misdeclaration of quantity rejected where supplier evidence established counting errors, so reassessment, confiscation and redemption fine were set as...
Admissibility of electronic evidence controls valuation and penalty exposure; non compliant e records and statements nullify revaluation and penalties...
Invoked extended limitation under the proviso to section 28(1) was rejected because revenue failed to prove deliberate suppression to evade duty; first check, examination and Textile Committee testing matched declared goods and an out-of-charge order was issued, showing departmental knowledge. The claim that end use was unknown at first check did not establish intent to evade. Consequently, demands founded solely on the extended period, including duty, interest, penalty and confiscation, were vacated and the appeal allowed.
Invoked extended limitation under the proviso to section 28(1) was rejected because revenue failed to prove deliberate suppression to evade duty; first check, examination and Textile Committee testing matched declared goods and an out-of-charge order was issued, showing departmental knowledge. The claim that end use was unknown at first check did not establish intent to evade. Consequently, demands founded solely on the extended period, including duty, interest, penalty and confiscation, were vacated and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
