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 export scheme dispute involving penalty provisions under sections 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal ruled that statements recorded under section 108 cannot be considered admissible evidence under section 138B without proper cross-examination procedures. The tribunal found the penalty imposition against the parties was unsupported by substantive evidence, specifically rejecting statements recorded without procedural safeguards. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, effectively quashing the penalties imposed on the exporters for alleged improper diversion of goods under the Focus Market Scheme.
CESTAT adjudicated a customs export scheme dispute involving penalty provisions under sections 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal ruled that statements recorded under section 108 cannot be considered admissible evidence under section 138B without proper cross-examination procedures. The tribunal found the penalty imposition against the parties was unsupported by substantive evidence, specifically rejecting statements recorded without procedural safeguards. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, effectively quashing the penalties imposed on the exporters for alleged improper diversion of goods under the Focus Market Scheme.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
