<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (11) TMI 883 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761897</link>
    <description>The CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal challenging demand of duty foregone on VKGUY scrips. The appellant was accused of exporting meat using pre-signed veterinary certificates without proper animal inspection. The tribunal held that 14 of 22 relied-upon documents were statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, which could only be admitted as evidence under Section 138B if specific conditions were met. The adjudicating authority failed to follow mandatory procedures by not examining the statement-makers or allowing cross-examination. Without these statements, the remaining evidence was insufficient to establish the allegations. The penalties on all appellants were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Nov 2024 12:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=778447" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (11) TMI 883 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761897</link>
      <description>The CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal challenging demand of duty foregone on VKGUY scrips. The appellant was accused of exporting meat using pre-signed veterinary certificates without proper animal inspection. The tribunal held that 14 of 22 relied-upon documents were statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, which could only be admitted as evidence under Section 138B if specific conditions were met. The adjudicating authority failed to follow mandatory procedures by not examining the statement-makers or allowing cross-examination. Without these statements, the remaining evidence was insufficient to establish the allegations. The penalties on all appellants were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761897</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>