https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255470 The court upheld the Rs. 20,81,411 differential duty demand due to misdeclaration of the car's year of manufacture. The confiscation of the vehicle was justified under Sections 111(m) and 111(o) for violating Transfer of Residence Rules. However, the Rs. 30,31,727 penalty under Section 114A and Rs. 9,50,316 interest demand under Section 28AB were set aside as unsustainable. The redemption fine was reduced from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs, considering the car's value and the appellant's intent. en-us Thu, 18 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255470 The court upheld the Rs. 20,81,411 differential duty demand due to misdeclaration of the car's year of manufacture. The confiscation of the vehicle was justified under Sections 111(m) and 111(o) for violating Transfer of Residence Rules. However, the Rs. 30,31,727 penalty under Section 114A and Rs. 9,50,316 interest demand under Section 28AB were set aside as unsustainable. The redemption fine was reduced from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs, considering the car's value and the appellant's intent. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 18 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255470