Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
The HC allowed the revenue's appeal, set aside the CESTAT order and upheld the orders of the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals), denying preferential tariff relief. The court held that entitlement under N/N.46/2011-Cus. requires a valid certificate of origin conforming to AIFTA Rules and that the importer bears the evidentiary burden. The AIFTA certificates were held unreliable: shipping records showed departure on 31.03.2014 while the invoices were dated 23.05.2014, and the certificate misidentified the third-party supplier, demonstrating material discrepancies that undermined authenticity. Tallying of quantities and vessel particulars could not substitute for a bona fide certificate; exemption therefore could not be granted.
The HC allowed the revenue's appeal, set aside the CESTAT order and upheld the orders of the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals), denying preferential tariff relief. The court held that entitlement under N/N.46/2011-Cus. requires a valid certificate of origin conforming to AIFTA Rules and that the importer bears the evidentiary burden. The AIFTA certificates were held unreliable: shipping records showed departure on 31.03.2014 while the invoices were dated 23.05.2014, and the certificate misidentified the third-party supplier, demonstrating material discrepancies that undermined authenticity. Tallying of quantities and vessel particulars could not substitute for a bona fide certificate; exemption therefore could not be granted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
