Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Clandestine removal demand based on electrical consumption was challenged. Average electricity consumption for certain periods was calculated. Cross-examination of officials whose statements were relied upon was denied, violating natural justice principles. The Tribunal consistently rejected electricity consumption-based quantification using Dr. Batra's formula. However, in this case, the Revenue calculated actual average consumption without using the formula. The appellant's argument regarding applicability of case law was rejected. The appellant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine persons whose statements were relied upon, contrary to the High Court's ruling allowing such cross-examination. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to provide the appellant an opportunity for cross-examination.
Clandestine removal demand based on electrical consumption was challenged. Average electricity consumption for certain periods was calculated. Cross-examination of officials whose statements were relied upon was denied, violating natural justice principles. The Tribunal consistently rejected electricity consumption-based quantification using Dr. Batra's formula. However, in this case, the Revenue calculated actual average consumption without using the formula. The appellant's argument regarding applicability of case law was rejected. The appellant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine persons whose statements were relied upon, contrary to the High Court's ruling allowing such cross-examination. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to provide the appellant an opportunity for cross-examination.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
