Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the confiscation, redemption fine and penalty imposed under Sections 111(b) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held the Department failed to adduce corroborative evidence establishing foreign origin or illegal importation of the seized dry dates; expert testing lacked probative value and third-party trader opinions based on naked-eye inspection constituted inadmissible hearsay. The record did not disclose any inquiry or material justifying a belief that the consignment contravened the relevant notification, rendering the seizure and consequent punitive measures founded on assumption and presumption. No liability under Section 112(b) was established against the appellant.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the confiscation, redemption fine and penalty imposed under Sections 111(b) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held the Department failed to adduce corroborative evidence establishing foreign origin or illegal importation of the seized dry dates; expert testing lacked probative value and third-party trader opinions based on naked-eye inspection constituted inadmissible hearsay. The record did not disclose any inquiry or material justifying a belief that the consignment contravened the relevant notification, rendering the seizure and consequent punitive measures founded on assumption and presumption. No liability under Section 112(b) was established against the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.