Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
A remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) treating a Tribunal judgment as 'additional evidence' under Rule 5 was held unsustainable because judicial decisions do not constitute documentary or evidentiary material within the meaning of Rule 5 and related statutory definitions; that part of the impugned orders was set aside. Separately, where facts and legal questions were identical to a prior Tribunal decision which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, the appeals were to be decided on that binding precedent; consequently the imported LCD monitors were held classifiable under CTH 8528 5200 attracting IGST at 18% and the appeals were allowed.
A remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) treating a Tribunal judgment as 'additional evidence' under Rule 5 was held unsustainable because judicial decisions do not constitute documentary or evidentiary material within the meaning of Rule 5 and related statutory definitions; that part of the impugned orders was set aside. Separately, where facts and legal questions were identical to a prior Tribunal decision which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, the appeals were to be decided on that binding precedent; consequently the imported LCD monitors were held classifiable under CTH 8528 5200 attracting IGST at 18% and the appeals were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
