https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439797 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant. It found the allegation of undervaluation of imported cement unfounded, noting that different MRPs due to varying import conditions do not indicate undervaluation. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the demand for differential duty was unsustainable since the department did not challenge the self-assessed Bills of Entry, aligning with SC precedents that require modification of assessments before demanding additional duty. en-us Mon, 19 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Feb 2024 12:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439797 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant. It found the allegation of undervaluation of imported cement unfounded, noting that different MRPs due to varying import conditions do not indicate undervaluation. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the demand for differential duty was unsustainable since the department did not challenge the self-assessed Bills of Entry, aligning with SC precedents that require modification of assessments before demanding additional duty. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 19 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439797