Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Assessee's project-completion revenue recognition upheld; income addition deleted under Guidance Note/AS-9 and percentage-completion rules as complian...
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.
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.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
