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...
CESTAT adjudicated a customs seizure case involving gold bars transported between cities. The tribunal found the seizure invalid due to lack of substantive evidence. Key determinations included: (1) the primary statement constituted hearsay testimony, (2) no corroborative documentation established smuggling, and (3) the revenue authority failed to demonstrate reasonable belief under Section 110 of the Customs Act. The tribunal rejected revenue's arguments regarding tax invoice dates and procedural objections. Consequently, the tribunal sustained the Commissioner (Appeals) order, dismissing the revenue's appeal and nullifying the original confiscation and penalty orders against the individual.
CESTAT adjudicated a customs seizure case involving gold bars transported between cities. The tribunal found the seizure invalid due to lack of substantive evidence. Key determinations included: (1) the primary statement constituted hearsay testimony, (2) no corroborative documentation established smuggling, and (3) the revenue authority failed to demonstrate reasonable belief under Section 110 of the Customs Act. The tribunal rejected revenue's arguments regarding tax invoice dates and procedural objections. Consequently, the tribunal sustained the Commissioner (Appeals) order, dismissing the revenue's appeal and nullifying the original confiscation and penalty orders against the individual.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
