Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
The CESTAT held that statements recorded by income tax officers under the Income Tax Act are inadmissible as evidence in Central Excise proceedings. The impugned order lacked any proper investigation under the Central Excise Act to establish clandestine manufacture or removal, resulting in insufficient evidence to sustain the duty demand. Consequently, the demand of duty, interest, and penalties against the appellant was quashed. Additionally, penalties imposed on other appellants were set aside as the relevant Central Excise Rules did not authorize penalties without confiscation of goods or issuance of false invoices enabling ineligible CENVAT credit. The appeal was allowed, and all impugned demands and penalties were annulled.
The CESTAT held that statements recorded by income tax officers under the Income Tax Act are inadmissible as evidence in Central Excise proceedings. The impugned order lacked any proper investigation under the Central Excise Act to establish clandestine manufacture or removal, resulting in insufficient evidence to sustain the duty demand. Consequently, the demand of duty, interest, and penalties against the appellant was quashed. Additionally, penalties imposed on other appellants were set aside as the relevant Central Excise Rules did not authorize penalties without confiscation of goods or issuance of false invoices enabling ineligible CENVAT credit. The appeal was allowed, and all impugned demands and penalties were annulled.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.