Deductibility for charitable donations affirmed where payments to approved relief funds, even if CSR-driven, qualify under the donation deduction sche...
Mis-declaration in import descriptions must be deliberate to justify confiscation; withheld contemporaneous import documents invalidate value redeterm...
Liability for EPCG export shortfall: duty and interest sustained, but confiscation and penalties quashed where no fraud and causes beyond importer con...
Seizure and confiscation under s.111 turned on whether the goods were licitly imported with valid duty-paying documents or were supported by fabricated invoices amounting to mis-declaration/undervaluation. The adjudicating authority verified the alleged supplier and relied on statements recorded under s.108, which were tested through cross-examination, establishing that the purported invoices were never issued and did not relate to the seized goods; hence the documents failed to prove lawful import or local procurement. Confiscation under s.111 and penalties under s.112 were sustained as the adjudication complied with natural justice and the evidence conclusively supported the department's case, resulting in dismissal of the appeals. - CESTAT
Seizure and confiscation under s.111 turned on whether the goods were licitly imported with valid duty-paying documents or were supported by fabricated invoices amounting to mis-declaration/undervaluation. The adjudicating authority verified the alleged supplier and relied on statements recorded under s.108, which were tested through cross-examination, establishing that the purported invoices were never issued and did not relate to the seized goods; hence the documents failed to prove lawful import or local procurement. Confiscation under s.111 and penalties under s.112 were sustained as the adjudication complied with natural justice and the evidence conclusively supported the department's case, resulting in dismissal of the appeals. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.