Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
The appellant challenged the demand of customs duty and penalties imposed on the grounds of alleged clandestine clearance of short found goods from their factory premises. The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide corroborative evidence or conduct proper investigation from the transporter and buyer to establish the clandestine removal. Relying solely on the statement of the appellant's director without cross-examination is not sustainable. The burden of proof lies on the Revenue to establish their case beyond doubt with sufficient evidence. As the Revenue failed to discharge this burden effectively, the demand was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The appellant challenged the demand of customs duty and penalties imposed on the grounds of alleged clandestine clearance of short found goods from their factory premises. The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide corroborative evidence or conduct proper investigation from the transporter and buyer to establish the clandestine removal. Relying solely on the statement of the appellant's director without cross-examination is not sustainable. The burden of proof lies on the Revenue to establish their case beyond doubt with sufficient evidence. As the Revenue failed to discharge this burden effectively, the demand was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
