<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2008 (7) TMI 797 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124629</link>
    <description>Confiscation and penalty for alleged misdeclaration and overvaluation of exported pressure die cast aluminium articles were held unsustainable because the record did not prove any deliberate false description. The test report only indicated aluminium content of not more than 85% and did not show that the goods were not aluminium articles or that an alloy description was false. On valuation, the Revenue&#039;s market enquiry was not supplied to the exporter, and comparability of the cited prices was not established; invoices for similar goods also showed wide price variation based on quality and composition. In the absence of reliable, disclosed evidence of intentional misdeclaration or inflated value, confiscation and penalty were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2012 16:00:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161573" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 797 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124629</link>
      <description>Confiscation and penalty for alleged misdeclaration and overvaluation of exported pressure die cast aluminium articles were held unsustainable because the record did not prove any deliberate false description. The test report only indicated aluminium content of not more than 85% and did not show that the goods were not aluminium articles or that an alloy description was false. On valuation, the Revenue&#039;s market enquiry was not supplied to the exporter, and comparability of the cited prices was not established; invoices for similar goods also showed wide price variation based on quality and composition. In the absence of reliable, disclosed evidence of intentional misdeclaration or inflated value, confiscation and penalty were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124629</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>