Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Clandestine removal - evasion of duty - clearance of branded Khaini - burden to prove on Revenue - Ultimately, the High court concurred with the majority view of the CESTAT, which had found the evidence against the respondents unreliable and insufficient to establish the charge of clandestine removal. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed on the grounds that the allegations could not be substantiated beyond reasonable doubt, underscoring the need for tangible evidence to support claims of tax evasion and clandestine operations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
