Person chargeable with duty must be the importer at importation; subsequent purchasers cannot be held liable where beneficial owner rules did not appl...
Appeal under Section 260A is confined to substantial questions of law and does not permit re appreciation of evidence or concurrent findings of fact; appeal dismissed to the extent it sought such re examination. The Revenue discharged its initial burden by issuing notices to counterparties and obtaining denials or non service, which constituted substantial evidence and shifted the onus to the appellant to produce creditworthy documents or witnesses; appellant failed to do so, so findings of bogus transactions were supportable. No procedural prejudice was shown as there is no record of a refused request to cross examine and the appellant did not produce parties or evidence.
Appeal under Section 260A is confined to substantial questions of law and does not permit re appreciation of evidence or concurrent findings of fact; appeal dismissed to the extent it sought such re examination. The Revenue discharged its initial burden by issuing notices to counterparties and obtaining denials or non service, which constituted substantial evidence and shifted the onus to the appellant to produce creditworthy documents or witnesses; appellant failed to do so, so findings of bogus transactions were supportable. No procedural prejudice was shown as there is no record of a refused request to cross examine and the appellant did not produce parties or evidence.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
