https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776323 The CESTAT New Delhi held that statements under section 108 of the Customs Act were inadmissible as the procedure under section 138B was not followed. Penalty under section 114A was quashed since no duty short payment was found. The Tribunal found no valid basis to reject the declared retail sale price or re-determine it under rule 6 of the 2008 Rules, as no machinery exists for CVD valuation when retail sale price is undeclared and the department's reliance on MRP lists was improper. Penalty under section 114AA was set aside due to lack of evidence of intentional mis-declaration or misuse of DFIA scrips. Duty demands related to Annexure A-2 and A-4 were also unsustainable as the appellant was entitled to DFIA benefits. The Principal Commissioner's order dated 24.09.2019 was set aside and the appeal allowed. en-us Wed, 06 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Aug 2025 05:20:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776323 The CESTAT New Delhi held that statements under section 108 of the Customs Act were inadmissible as the procedure under section 138B was not followed. Penalty under section 114A was quashed since no duty short payment was found. The Tribunal found no valid basis to reject the declared retail sale price or re-determine it under rule 6 of the 2008 Rules, as no machinery exists for CVD valuation when retail sale price is undeclared and the department's reliance on MRP lists was improper. Penalty under section 114AA was set aside due to lack of evidence of intentional mis-declaration or misuse of DFIA scrips. Duty demands related to Annexure A-2 and A-4 were also unsustainable as the appellant was entitled to DFIA benefits. The Principal Commissioner's order dated 24.09.2019 was set aside and the appeal allowed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 06 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776323