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 ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
A statement recorded under section 108 could not sustain penalty because the mandatory procedure under section 138B was not followed, rendering the statement inadmissible for evidentiary reliance. Penalty under section 112(b) also failed because the statutory ingredients were not proved: there was no established dealing with goods liable to confiscation and no of knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were so liable. On these findings, the Tribunal set aside the penalty and allowed the appeal.
A statement recorded under section 108 could not sustain penalty because the mandatory procedure under section 138B was not followed, rendering the statement inadmissible for evidentiary reliance. Penalty under section 112(b) also failed because the statutory ingredients were not proved: there was no established dealing with goods liable to confiscation and no of knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were so liable. On these findings, the Tribunal set aside the penalty and allowed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.