https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770770 CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal in part. The tribunal set aside the invocation of extended limitation period under section 28(4) of Customs Act and penalty under section 114A, finding no willful misstatement or suppression of facts as the appellant had paid excess customs duty in other cases. However, the tribunal upheld the inclusion of metal lease charges and insurance premium in assessable value, holding that metal lease charges were not interest in nature and insurance premium was a condition of sale under rule 10(1)(e) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. en-us Tue, 13 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 May 2025 08:40:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770770 CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal in part. The tribunal set aside the invocation of extended limitation period under section 28(4) of Customs Act and penalty under section 114A, finding no willful misstatement or suppression of facts as the appellant had paid excess customs duty in other cases. However, the tribunal upheld the inclusion of metal lease charges and insurance premium in assessable value, holding that metal lease charges were not interest in nature and insurance premium was a condition of sale under rule 10(1)(e) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 13 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770770