Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 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" ?
CESTAT allowed appellants' appeals, setting aside customs duty demand and penalty. The tribunal found no sustainable evidence of undervaluation, non-compliance with notification requirements, or procedural irregularities. Electronic evidence and investigation statements were deemed inadmissible due to non-compliance with Sections 138B and 138C of Customs Act. The tribunal ordered refund of Rs. 1,21,73,905/- paid during investigation within 60 days, effectively exonerating the appellants of all charges related to customs duty evasion and undervaluation.
CESTAT allowed appellants' appeals, setting aside customs duty demand and penalty. The tribunal found no sustainable evidence of undervaluation, non-compliance with notification requirements, or procedural irregularities. Electronic evidence and investigation statements were deemed inadmissible due to non-compliance with Sections 138B and 138C of Customs Act. The tribunal ordered refund of Rs. 1,21,73,905/- paid during investigation within 60 days, effectively exonerating the appellants of all charges related to customs duty evasion and undervaluation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
