Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
A classification dispute in self-assessment does not, by itself, establish wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. The Tribunal held that where the importer disclosed the relevant particulars in the Bills of Entry and the dispute was only over tariff classification, the extended limitation period under section 28(4) was not available; reliance on statements recorded under section 108 was impermissible without compliance with section 138B. On the same footing, the penalty under section 114A could not survive. The Tribunal also held that wrong classification alone does not amount to misdeclaration for confiscation under section 111(m), so the confiscation order was set aside.
A classification dispute in self-assessment does not, by itself, establish wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. The Tribunal held that where the importer disclosed the relevant particulars in the Bills of Entry and the dispute was only over tariff classification, the extended limitation period under section 28(4) was not available; reliance on statements recorded under section 108 was impermissible without compliance with section 138B. On the same footing, the penalty under section 114A could not survive. The Tribunal also held that wrong classification alone does not amount to misdeclaration for confiscation under section 111(m), so the confiscation order was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
