Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural...
Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
Differential customs duty could not be demanded on imported watches merely because authorised dealers later revised the retail sale price after clearance. The Tribunal held that the importer had declared the RSP at import, paid duty on that basis, and the goods were finally assessed without provisional assessment or user conditions; in the absence of evidence that the importer itself altered the RSP or knew of the later revision, rule 5 of the 2008 Rules was wrongly applied to an importer. The director's section 108 statement was also found irrelevant without compliance with section 138B. As the duty demand failed, the penalty under section 114A was also set aside.
Differential customs duty could not be demanded on imported watches merely because authorised dealers later revised the retail sale price after clearance. The Tribunal held that the importer had declared the RSP at import, paid duty on that basis, and the goods were finally assessed without provisional assessment or user conditions; in the absence of evidence that the importer itself altered the RSP or knew of the later revision, rule 5 of the 2008 Rules was wrongly applied to an importer. The director's section 108 statement was also found irrelevant without compliance with section 138B. As the duty demand failed, the penalty under section 114A was also set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
