https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771661 CESTAT New Delhi allowed appeals challenging differential duty demand on imported goods. The dispute arose from treating ex-works price as FOB value in Bills of Entry, resulting in reduced air transport costs calculation (20% of ex-works instead of FOB value). While acknowledging mis-statement by appellants, the tribunal found it was genuine oversight rather than willful suppression, as assessing officers had access to all documents and made similar error without evidence of collusion. Extended limitation period under section 28 was held inapplicable due to absence of willful mis-statement. Consequently, penalties were also unsustainable. Entire demand was set aside as it fell within extended limitation period. en-us Tue, 27 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 May 2025 08:41:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771661 CESTAT New Delhi allowed appeals challenging differential duty demand on imported goods. The dispute arose from treating ex-works price as FOB value in Bills of Entry, resulting in reduced air transport costs calculation (20% of ex-works instead of FOB value). While acknowledging mis-statement by appellants, the tribunal found it was genuine oversight rather than willful suppression, as assessing officers had access to all documents and made similar error without evidence of collusion. Extended limitation period under section 28 was held inapplicable due to absence of willful mis-statement. Consequently, penalties were also unsustainable. Entire demand was set aside as it fell within extended limitation period. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 27 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771661