1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside confiscation and penalties. The Tribunal held statements recorded under s.108 of the Customs Act were inadmissible for substantive proof because s.138B's mandatory procedure (examination as witness and adjudicatory determination to admit) was not complied with; printouts seized from the appellant's email/laptop were also excluded. With that evidence discarded, under-valuation of the 14th consignment could not be established and transaction value could not be rejected under the Valuation Rules. Consequently confiscation under s.111(m) was unsustainable, and penalties under s.112(b)(ii) and s.114AA could not be levied; the penalties and confiscation were therefore set aside.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
