Composite GST notices, mandatory limitation, and same-subject bar: HC upheld valid notices but quashed overlapping proceedings and unauthorised withho...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3221 to 3240 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Mere misclassification of imported goods in the Bill of Entry did not, by itself, amount to misdeclaration under section 111(m) or make the goods liable to confiscation. The Tribunal held that penalty under section 112(a)(ii) is sustainable only where the goods are first liable to confiscation under section 111; in the absence of confiscability, the penalty had no legal basis. Even if the goods were wrongly self-assessed or classified, that did not establish liability to confiscation on the facts considered. The penalty was therefore set aside.
Mere misclassification of imported goods in the Bill of Entry did not, by itself, amount to misdeclaration under section 111(m) or make the goods liable to confiscation. The Tribunal held that penalty under section 112(a)(ii) is sustainable only where the goods are first liable to confiscation under section 111; in the absence of confiscability, the penalty had no legal basis. Even if the goods were wrongly self-assessed or classified, that did not establish liability to confiscation on the facts considered. The penalty was therefore set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.