Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3001 to 3020 of 95957 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 penalties on the freight forwarder and its authorised representative after finding that the case rested on presumption rather than evidentiary linkage. It held that, on the reading of Circular No. 41/2017-Cus, mere movement of export goods to the ICD without RFID e-seal, where self-sealing permission was absent, did not by itself establish an offence when de-stuffing and 100% examination had been carried out. The order also failed to show what undue export benefit was sought or how the appellants were connected to the alleged dummy or fake documents. With penalties on the alleged document-generating co-noticees already set aside, no basis survived for penalties under sections 114 and 114AA.
CESTAT set aside penalties on the freight forwarder and its authorised representative after finding that the case rested on presumption rather than evidentiary linkage. It held that, on the reading of Circular No. 41/2017-Cus, mere movement of export goods to the ICD without RFID e-seal, where self-sealing permission was absent, did not by itself establish an offence when de-stuffing and 100% examination had been carried out. The order also failed to show what undue export benefit was sought or how the appellants were connected to the alleged dummy or fake documents. With penalties on the alleged document-generating co-noticees already set aside, no basis survived for penalties under sections 114 and 114AA.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
