https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763386 CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal in a customs duty recovery case involving mis-declaration allegations. The appellant imported capital goods under EPCG authorization without declaring year of manufacture in the Bill of Entry. The department alleged mis-declaration to avail undue TUF scheme benefits. CESTAT held no mis-declaration occurred as Bill of Entry contained no year specification, EPCG authorization imposed no year restrictions, and goods were imported under EPCG not TUF. The Commissioner of Customs lacked authority to modify DGFT-issued licenses or impose additional conditions. Confiscation under sections 111(m) and 111(o) was unwarranted, and penalty under section 114A unsustainable due to no duty short-payment. en-us Tue, 17 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Dec 2024 12:32:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763386 CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal in a customs duty recovery case involving mis-declaration allegations. The appellant imported capital goods under EPCG authorization without declaring year of manufacture in the Bill of Entry. The department alleged mis-declaration to avail undue TUF scheme benefits. CESTAT held no mis-declaration occurred as Bill of Entry contained no year specification, EPCG authorization imposed no year restrictions, and goods were imported under EPCG not TUF. The Commissioner of Customs lacked authority to modify DGFT-issued licenses or impose additional conditions. Confiscation under sections 111(m) and 111(o) was unwarranted, and penalty under section 114A unsustainable due to no duty short-payment. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 17 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763386