Search and seizure: abatement of earlier search bars use of prior seized material in later search-based assessments; relief limited to new documents f...
Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
Export Obligation Discharge Certificates for EPCG compliance cannot be questioned by Customs unless DGFT adjudicates and cancels them, so demands quas...
Allegations of undervaluation and misdeclaration of imported LED TVs as unbranded were rejected because the panchnama showed brand stickers only on certain LED panels while other parts lacked branding, and branding of a component could not legally convert the entire TV into a branded product; hence rejection of declared value on this ground was unsustainable. Reliance on computer printouts/retrieved data was inadmissible as the mandatory conditions for electronic evidence under Section 138C were not complied with, leaving the allegations unproved; consequently, re-determination of value was set aside. For drywall screws, absence of contemporaneous examination and comparison with invoices from different financial years and unrelated parties rendered the valuation exercise presumptive; therefore, revaluation was quashed and the appeal was allowed. - CESTAT
Allegations of undervaluation and misdeclaration of imported LED TVs as unbranded were rejected because the panchnama showed brand stickers only on certain LED panels while other parts lacked branding, and branding of a component could not legally convert the entire TV into a branded product; hence rejection of declared value on this ground was unsustainable. Reliance on computer printouts/retrieved data was inadmissible as the mandatory conditions for electronic evidence under Section 138C were not complied with, leaving the allegations unproved; consequently, re-determination of value was set aside. For drywall screws, absence of contemporaneous examination and comparison with invoices from different financial years and unrelated parties rendered the valuation exercise presumptive; therefore, revaluation was quashed and the appeal was allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.