Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
Export Obligation Discharge Certificates for EPCG compliance cannot be questioned by Customs unless DGFT adjudicates and cancels them, so demands quas...
Rule 17(2) deemed that packing machines in an unregistered unit operate from the financial year start, but contemporaneous documentary and testimonial evidence of purchase, transport and installation displaced the deeming to 16.05.2011, limiting duty to actual days of operation. Statements of third parties relied on by the department were inadmissible without cross-examination under Section 9D and, together with panchnama discrepancies, lacked probative value to establish clandestine manufacture or earlier clearance. Absent independent corroboration the Tribunal set aside demands and penalties premised on illicit manufacture or collusion and granted consequential relief.
Rule 17(2) deemed that packing machines in an unregistered unit operate from the financial year start, but contemporaneous documentary and testimonial evidence of purchase, transport and installation displaced the deeming to 16.05.2011, limiting duty to actual days of operation. Statements of third parties relied on by the department were inadmissible without cross-examination under Section 9D and, together with panchnama discrepancies, lacked probative value to establish clandestine manufacture or earlier clearance. Absent independent corroboration the Tribunal set aside demands and penalties premised on illicit manufacture or collusion and granted consequential relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.