Export obligation removed by notification, customs duty demand invalidated; penalties under s.112 and s.114AA quashed due to inadmissible s.108 statem...
Customs officers must wear and use department-issued body-worn cameras when clearing passenger baggage, with daily secure transfer and 30-day retentio...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
10041 to 10060 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned demand and penalties. The Tribunal held that the duty liability and clandestine removal allegations rested solely on retracted statements, rough private diary entries and other private documents seized during search, none of which constituted admissible or corroborative evidence of manufacture and clearance. The appellant-company's input-output ratio was undisputed and there was no evidence showing receipt of the alleged additional 1,965 MT of raw material. Consequently the confirmed excise demand was unsustainable and annulled; penalty under Rule 25 read with s.11AC and penalties against the individual directors under Rule 26 were also set aside.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned demand and penalties. The Tribunal held that the duty liability and clandestine removal allegations rested solely on retracted statements, rough private diary entries and other private documents seized during search, none of which constituted admissible or corroborative evidence of manufacture and clearance. The appellant-company's input-output ratio was undisputed and there was no evidence showing receipt of the alleged additional 1,965 MT of raw material. Consequently the confirmed excise demand was unsustainable and annulled; penalty under Rule 25 read with s.11AC and penalties against the individual directors under Rule 26 were also set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
