Search and seizure: abatement of earlier search bars use of prior seized material in later search-based assessments; relief limited to new documents f...
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...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
