Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI OCR

Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2022 (8) TMI 113 - AT - Customs

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal upholds decision dismissing Revenue appeal due to lack of evidence. Commissioner's order affirmed. The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision, dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue due to lack of substantial evidence supporting ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Tribunal upholds decision dismissing Revenue appeal due to lack of evidence. Commissioner's order affirmed.

                          The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision, dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue due to lack of substantial evidence supporting allegations of undervaluation. The order of the Commissioner was affirmed, emphasizing the importance of concrete evidence and adherence to legal procedures in such cases.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Allegation of undervaluation of imported goods.
                          2. Validity of evidence based on parallel invoices.
                          3. Comparison of import values with other importers.
                          4. Reliance on previous cases of undervaluation.
                          5. Use of evidence from a private investigator.

                          Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Allegation of Undervaluation of Imported Goods:
                          The respondents, M/s Granite India, were accused of undervaluing imported diamond segments and saw blanks. The investigation alleged that the respondents prepared invoices showing lesser values for customs submission and settled the difference through illegal channels. A show cause notice was issued seeking to confiscate the goods, re-determine their value, recover differential duty, and impose penalties under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

                          2. Validity of Evidence Based on Parallel Invoices:
                          The investigation retrieved two parallel invoices from the supplier M/s. HXF Saw Co. Ltd., showing different values for the same consignment. The adjudicating authority noted significant differences between the invoices, such as the presence of bank details in the higher value invoice, which were absent in the lower value invoice. The adjudicating authority concluded that the lower value invoice appeared to be a proforma invoice and rejected it as evidence of undervaluation. The Tribunal upheld this finding, stating that the value of the entire imports cannot be based on a single invoice without evidence of differential payment.

                          3. Comparison of Import Values with Other Importers:
                          The investigation compared the respondents' import values with those of M/s. Shree Ram Granite and others, who imported similar goods at higher prices. The adjudicating authority found that the quantities imported by these other importers were significantly smaller and that the quality of goods differed. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the respondents were major buyers and their imports were not comparable to those of smaller importers. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Basant Industries, emphasizing that mere comparison of invoices without considering the relationship between supplier and importer and the volume of imports is insufficient to prove undervaluation.

                          4. Reliance on Previous Cases of Undervaluation:
                          The investigation referenced a previous case of undervaluation settled by the respondents in 2013. The adjudicating authority found that this reference was insufficient to establish undervaluation in the current case. The Tribunal concurred, stating that antecedents can create suspicion but are not evidence of undervaluation in a different proceeding. The Tribunal emphasized that propensity to commit an offense is not proof of the offense itself.

                          5. Use of Evidence from a Private Investigator:
                          The investigation relied on evidence from a private person, Mr. Vishal Vora, who allegedly had We-Chat conversations with the supplier indicating undervaluation. The adjudicating authority dismissed this evidence as inadmissible, noting that the use of private investigators is not permitted under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal supported this view, highlighting the risks of using unverified private investigations in competitive markets and declaring such evidence irrelevant and inadmissible.

                          Conclusion:
                          The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision, finding no substantial evidence to support the allegations of undervaluation. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the order of the learned Commissioner was affirmed. The Tribunal emphasized the need for concrete evidence and proper legal procedures in cases of alleged undervaluation.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found