Imported cement concessional duty exemption under Notification 4/2006 challenged over RSP misdeclaration; demand, interest and s.114A penalty set asid...
Body-worn camera recordings for Customs baggage checks: new SOP mandates full passenger-interaction capture, secure storage, privacy safeguards, stric...
Duty liability could not be fastened on the appellant merely as a purchaser of import licences when the licences were issued by the competent authority and were not forged, and there was a recorded finding that the appellant was not party to any fraud by the seller; consequently, the demand against the appellant was unsustainable. Statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act were not admissible/reliable in the absence of compliance with section 138B, which requires examination of the maker as a witness, a reasoned finding on admissibility, and an opportunity of cross-examination; hence the statements could not support the demand. The impugned adjudication order was set aside and the appeal was allowed. - CESTAT
Duty liability could not be fastened on the appellant merely as a purchaser of import licences when the licences were issued by the competent authority and were not forged, and there was a recorded finding that the appellant was not party to any fraud by the seller; consequently, the demand against the appellant was unsustainable. Statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act were not admissible/reliable in the absence of compliance with section 138B, which requires examination of the maker as a witness, a reasoned finding on admissibility, and an opportunity of cross-examination; hence the statements could not support the demand. The impugned adjudication order was set aside and the appeal was allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
