CESTAT set aside the impugned adjudication and allowed the...
Adjudication set aside; Rule 9 valuation based on internet engineer report quashed for Rule 3(4) non-compliance; Section 138B cross-examination required
📋
Contents
Cases Cited
Referred In
Notifications
Circulars
Forms
Manuals
Acts
Rules & Regulations
Case Laws New
Ref Provisions New
Plus +
Source NTF
Summary
Similar
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
CESTAT set aside the impugned adjudication and allowed the appeal, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication; the Tribunal found the assessable value improperly re-determined under Rule 9 based on a Chartered Engineer's internet-derived valuation and noted substantial variance between two engineer reports, neither subjected to cross-examination. Non-compliance with Rule 3(4) was identified and the absence of opportunity to controvert or cross-examine the report author rendered the conclusion untenable. The original adjudicating authority is directed to revisit the show-cause notice, afford the noticee full opportunity to controvert evidence, and ensure any expert or report relied upon is made available for cross-examination in accordance with Section 138B.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.