https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262275 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant on various grounds. It held that the Additional Director lacked jurisdiction to issue a show-cause notice under the Customs Act. The correct Retail Sale Price (RSP) for levy of duty should be the highest price at which the goods were sold. Confiscation of goods was not sustainable due to identification issues, leading to penalties not being upheld. The invocation of extended limitation period was justified due to misstatements by the appellant. Penalties under certain sections were deemed unsustainable, except for a penalty under Section 114A to the extent of reworked duty demand. en-us Fri, 03 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Jan 2016 17:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262275 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant on various grounds. It held that the Additional Director lacked jurisdiction to issue a show-cause notice under the Customs Act. The correct Retail Sale Price (RSP) for levy of duty should be the highest price at which the goods were sold. Confiscation of goods was not sustainable due to identification issues, leading to penalties not being upheld. The invocation of extended limitation period was justified due to misstatements by the appellant. Penalties under certain sections were deemed unsustainable, except for a penalty under Section 114A to the extent of reworked duty demand. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 03 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262275