<?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>2025 (11) TMI 1220 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781752</link>
    <description>Declared transaction value may be rejected only on legally sustainable, contemporaneous and objectively verifiable material showing reasonable doubt; third-party data and database comparisons alone were insufficient, so the duty re-determination failed. Extended limitation could not be invoked without suppression or wilful misstatement, and the delayed demand lacked the foundational facts required for the longer period. Confiscation, redemption fine and penalties under Sections 112, 114A and 114AA also fell once undervaluation was not proved on a lawful basis, and no independent evidence supported intentional misconduct by the partner, so the penalty findings could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2025 14:27:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=865859" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 1220 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781752</link>
      <description>Declared transaction value may be rejected only on legally sustainable, contemporaneous and objectively verifiable material showing reasonable doubt; third-party data and database comparisons alone were insufficient, so the duty re-determination failed. Extended limitation could not be invoked without suppression or wilful misstatement, and the delayed demand lacked the foundational facts required for the longer period. Confiscation, redemption fine and penalties under Sections 112, 114A and 114AA also fell once undervaluation was not proved on a lawful basis, and no independent evidence supported intentional misconduct by the partner, so the penalty findings could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781752</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>