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...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Allegations of clandestine removal of polished vitrified tiles and evasion of duty were primarily based on private documents/records recovered from premises of M/s K.N. Brothers/Shree Ambaji Enterprises, Shroff, and office of Shri Pravin Shirvi, Broker/middlemen. CESTAT held that opportunity of cross-examination was not provided, violating principles of natural justice. Reliability of statements was doubtful as there were discrepancies in amounts mentioned. Cross-examination of witnesses is mandatory u/s 9D of the Act. Untested statements of third parties cannot be sole basis for adverse conclusion against assessee. Positive and tangible evidence is required to establish clandestine removal, not assumptions and presumptions. Entire demand was theoretical and theoretical. Impugned order set aside and appeal allowed.
Allegations of clandestine removal of polished vitrified tiles and evasion of duty were primarily based on private documents/records recovered from premises of M/s K.N. Brothers/Shree Ambaji Enterprises, Shroff, and office of Shri Pravin Shirvi, Broker/middlemen. CESTAT held that opportunity of cross-examination was not provided, violating principles of natural justice. Reliability of statements was doubtful as there were discrepancies in amounts mentioned. Cross-examination of witnesses is mandatory u/s 9D of the Act. Untested statements of third parties cannot be sole basis for adverse conclusion against assessee. Positive and tangible evidence is required to establish clandestine removal, not assumptions and presumptions. Entire demand was theoretical and theoretical. Impugned order set aside and appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.