<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Appeal allowed; valuation upheld, reassessment and enhanced duty quashed; confiscation and fines revoked; Sections 28, 112, 114A penalties set aside</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91840</link>
    <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Tribunal held that the transaction value declared by the appellant could not be rejected on the basis of unrelated pro forma invoices and uncorroborated statements; consequently reassessment and enhanced valuation were unsustainable. Differential duty demands in respect of blankets were quashed for lack of contemporaneous corroborative evidence. Orders of confiscation and redemption fines were revoked. Invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 28 and imposition of penalties under Sections 112 and 114A were held unwarranted for want of requisite suppression, misdeclaration or intent, and those penalties were set aside. Appeal disposed accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 23 Aug 2025 08:31:25 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Aug 2025 08:31:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=845417" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appeal allowed; valuation upheld, reassessment and enhanced duty quashed; confiscation and fines revoked; Sections 28, 112, 114A penalties set aside</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91840</link>
      <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Tribunal held that the transaction value declared by the appellant could not be rejected on the basis of unrelated pro forma invoices and uncorroborated statements; consequently reassessment and enhanced valuation were unsustainable. Differential duty demands in respect of blankets were quashed for lack of contemporaneous corroborative evidence. Orders of confiscation and redemption fines were revoked. Invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 28 and imposition of penalties under Sections 112 and 114A were held unwarranted for want of requisite suppression, misdeclaration or intent, and those penalties were set aside. Appeal disposed accordingly.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 23 Aug 2025 08:31:25 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91840</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>