Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was not available for a customs demand raised about four years after clearance, because the record showed a consistent earlier and later classification of the same goods without objection and supported a bona fide belief by the importer. It further held that non-imposition of penalty under Section 114AA did not, by itself, mean there was no suppression. Finding no misdeclaration or suppression on the facts, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order as time-barred and allowed the appeal solely on limitation, leaving the classification dispute undecided.
The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was not available for a customs demand raised about four years after clearance, because the record showed a consistent earlier and later classification of the same goods without objection and supported a bona fide belief by the importer. It further held that non-imposition of penalty under Section 114AA did not, by itself, mean there was no suppression. Finding no misdeclaration or suppression on the facts, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order as time-barred and allowed the appeal solely on limitation, leaving the classification dispute undecided.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
