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...
Invoked extended limitation under the proviso to section 28(1) was rejected because revenue failed to prove deliberate suppression to evade duty; first check, examination and Textile Committee testing matched declared goods and an out-of-charge order was issued, showing departmental knowledge. The claim that end use was unknown at first check did not establish intent to evade. Consequently, demands founded solely on the extended period, including duty, interest, penalty and confiscation, were vacated and the appeal allowed.
Invoked extended limitation under the proviso to section 28(1) was rejected because revenue failed to prove deliberate suppression to evade duty; first check, examination and Textile Committee testing matched declared goods and an out-of-charge order was issued, showing departmental knowledge. The claim that end use was unknown at first check did not establish intent to evade. Consequently, demands founded solely on the extended period, including duty, interest, penalty and confiscation, were vacated and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.