Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
