Content ownership determines GST treatment of printed publications: customer-supplied text is a taxable printing service, owned content is exempt good...
Employee recoveries, input tax credit and notice pay recovery under GST: AAR distinguishes taxable supplies from non-taxable perquisites and penalties...
Electronic evidence from a mobile phone was rejected because the statutory requirements for admissibility under Section 138C were not shown to be met, and the retrieved note did not match the import documents in specification or quantity. Comparable import data was also found insufficient because similarity in grade, dimensions, width and commercial level was not established, so rejection of the declared transaction value failed and undervaluation was not proved. The Tribunal further held that suppression was not made out where the show cause case rested on documents already supplied at import, making the extended period unavailable and the penalties unsustainable. Classification was left open.
Electronic evidence from a mobile phone was rejected because the statutory requirements for admissibility under Section 138C were not shown to be met, and the retrieved note did not match the import documents in specification or quantity. Comparable import data was also found insufficient because similarity in grade, dimensions, width and commercial level was not established, so rejection of the declared transaction value failed and undervaluation was not proved. The Tribunal further held that suppression was not made out where the show cause case rested on documents already supplied at import, making the extended period unavailable and the penalties unsustainable. Classification was left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
