Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
741 to 760 of 96406 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4821 
Join Channel 
