Revisability of return invalidation communications under tax procedure affirmed, impugned non revisional finding quashed and matter remitted for fresh...
Transferable duty credit scrips validity and bona fide transferee entitlement to exemption upheld where scrips were subsisting at import, appeals allo...
Classification of knocked down motor vehicle component imports: Notification benefit denied because items are standalone non kit parts requiring subst...
Reassessment against a deceased assessee: procedural defect mandates fresh reassessment; nonresponsive petitioner may be treated as legal representati...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6461 to 6480 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Freight and insurance were held includible in the assessable value under Rule 10(2) because the importer failed to produce clear documentary proof that the FOB price already covered transportation and insurance up to importation; oral assertion alone was insufficient, and the invoice terms supported the Revenue's case. However, the demand was barred by limitation because the importer had disclosed the invoiced value and the treatment of freight and insurance in the bill of entry and supporting documents, so suppression or wilful misstatement was not proved. The Tribunal applied the principle that suppression requires a positive, deliberate act and treated the dispute as revenue neutral, allowing the appeal on limitation and setting aside the duty, interest and penalty.
Freight and insurance were held includible in the assessable value under Rule 10(2) because the importer failed to produce clear documentary proof that the FOB price already covered transportation and insurance up to importation; oral assertion alone was insufficient, and the invoice terms supported the Revenue's case. However, the demand was barred by limitation because the importer had disclosed the invoiced value and the treatment of freight and insurance in the bill of entry and supporting documents, so suppression or wilful misstatement was not proved. The Tribunal applied the principle that suppression requires a positive, deliberate act and treated the dispute as revenue neutral, allowing the appeal on limitation and setting aside the duty, interest and penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.