Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
The CESTAT held that statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, without compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguards under section 138B, are inadmissible as evidence. The Commissioner (Appeals) had relied solely on such statements by the appellant company's Director to determine undervaluation and misdeclaration of imported motorcycles. Given the failure to adhere to the prescribed procedure, the Tribunal found this reliance unjustified and quashed the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) order dated October 23, 2012, was set aside, restoring the appellant's declared valuation and rejecting the reassessment based on the inadmissible statements.
The CESTAT held that statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, without compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguards under section 138B, are inadmissible as evidence. The Commissioner (Appeals) had relied solely on such statements by the appellant company's Director to determine undervaluation and misdeclaration of imported motorcycles. Given the failure to adhere to the prescribed procedure, the Tribunal found this reliance unjustified and quashed the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) order dated October 23, 2012, was set aside, restoring the appellant's declared valuation and rejecting the reassessment based on the inadmissible statements.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.