https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115643 The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant for alleged misdeclaration of goods' value under the DEPB scheme. The appellant provided evidence of manufacturing cost through a Chartered Accountant certificate, which the Commissioner did not consider. Market inquiries confirmed the unavailability of similar goods for sale. As the appellant gave up their claim for DEPB benefit based on the declared value, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty was unjustified due to the lack of comparable goods in the market and the proximity of the manufacturing cost to the declared value. The appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant. en-us Tue, 28 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 May 2012 16:49:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115643 The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant for alleged misdeclaration of goods' value under the DEPB scheme. The appellant provided evidence of manufacturing cost through a Chartered Accountant certificate, which the Commissioner did not consider. Market inquiries confirmed the unavailability of similar goods for sale. As the appellant gave up their claim for DEPB benefit based on the declared value, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty was unjustified due to the lack of comparable goods in the market and the proximity of the manufacturing cost to the declared value. The appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 28 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115643