https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436486 The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the rejection of the declared value and upheld the demand for differential duty. The retraction of statements by the Managing Director weakened the Revenue's case, leading to the Tribunal setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. The judgment was delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, with Members P.V. Subba Rao (Technical) and Binu Tamta (Judicial) presiding over the case. en-us Wed, 12 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Apr 2023 09:01:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436486 The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the rejection of the declared value and upheld the demand for differential duty. The retraction of statements by the Managing Director weakened the Revenue's case, leading to the Tribunal setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. The judgment was delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, with Members P.V. Subba Rao (Technical) and Binu Tamta (Judicial) presiding over the case. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 12 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436486