https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375630 Differential customs duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be sustained because the demand travelled beyond the show-cause notice and the assessment had attained finality without being challenged. Rejection of the declared transaction value also failed because the relied-upon imports were not comparable, as the imported goods were only hardware while the comparables included software, and there was no evidence of relationship or flow back affecting valuation. On that basis, the consequential confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were also held unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential benefits. en-us Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Feb 2019 06:11:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375630 Differential customs duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be sustained because the demand travelled beyond the show-cause notice and the assessment had attained finality without being challenged. Rejection of the declared transaction value also failed because the relied-upon imports were not comparable, as the imported goods were only hardware while the comparables included software, and there was no evidence of relationship or flow back affecting valuation. On that basis, the consequential confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were also held unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential benefits. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 18 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375630