Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3221 to 3240 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT set aside customs penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA because the revenue failed to prove the alleged collusion and evasion scheme. The Tribunal followed its earlier orders in the appellant's own case and in identical matters, noting that the alleged fake certificates of origin had not been investigated or established through the Malaysian authorities. It also found that the electronic documents relied upon against the appellant were inadmissible in evidence. As the foundational allegations were not proved, the penalty basis failed and no penal liability survived.
CESTAT set aside customs penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA because the revenue failed to prove the alleged collusion and evasion scheme. The Tribunal followed its earlier orders in the appellant's own case and in identical matters, noting that the alleged fake certificates of origin had not been investigated or established through the Malaysian authorities. It also found that the electronic documents relied upon against the appellant were inadmissible in evidence. As the foundational allegations were not proved, the penalty basis failed and no penal liability survived.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
