https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436589 The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and granting consequential benefits to the respondent. The Tribunal found no evidence to confirm the Revenue's demand for differential duty recovery based on alleged mis-declaration. Additionally, the deposit made by the respondent during the investigation was deemed insufficient to establish the Department's case. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity of concrete evidence to support duty-related allegations and emphasized the importance of adhering to Customs Valuation Rules in determining assessable value for imported goods. en-us Wed, 12 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Apr 2023 08:05:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436589 The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and granting consequential benefits to the respondent. The Tribunal found no evidence to confirm the Revenue's demand for differential duty recovery based on alleged mis-declaration. Additionally, the deposit made by the respondent during the investigation was deemed insufficient to establish the Department's case. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity of concrete evidence to support duty-related allegations and emphasized the importance of adhering to Customs Valuation Rules in determining assessable value for imported goods. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 12 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436589