Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural...
Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
