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...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Page of 4788
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
421 to 440 of 95749 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Seizure of goods as smuggled into the country from Myanmar u/s 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. The burden of proof lies on the respondent u/s 123 to show that the seized areca nuts are not smuggled goods, or on the Department u/s 111 to establish that the seized betel nuts are of foreign origin and smuggled before confiscation. The High Court emphasized that the existence of a substantial question of law is a prerequisite for exercising jurisdiction u/s 130. The Court examined whether the Appellate Tribunal ignored material evidence or acted without evidence, which could constitute a substantial question of law. The Court analyzed the evidence, including the proximity to the international border, lack of foreign markings, absence of expert opinion on origin, and documents showing purchase from a local store. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's order cannot be treated as perverse, as it was not arrived at without evidence or reasons, thus answering the substantial question of law framed regarding perversity against the appellant.
Seizure of goods as smuggled into the country from Myanmar u/s 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. The burden of proof lies on the respondent u/s 123 to show that the seized areca nuts are not smuggled goods, or on the Department u/s 111 to establish that the seized betel nuts are of foreign origin and smuggled before confiscation. The High Court emphasized that the existence of a substantial question of law is a prerequisite for exercising jurisdiction u/s 130. The Court examined whether the Appellate Tribunal ignored material evidence or acted without evidence, which could constitute a substantial question of law. The Court analyzed the evidence, including the proximity to the international border, lack of foreign markings, absence of expert opinion on origin, and documents showing purchase from a local store. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's order cannot be treated as perverse, as it was not arrived at without evidence or reasons, thus answering the substantial question of law framed regarding perversity against the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
