<?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>2023 (9) TMI 1598 - GUJARAT HIGH CORUT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459024</link>
    <description>At the discharge stage under Section 227 CrPC, the court must only see whether the record discloses sufficient ground for proceeding and whether the material creates a prima facie case or grave suspicion; a detailed assessment of defence pleas or rival evidence is impermissible. On the facts, the record suggested clearance of goods on invoice value rather than MRP-based valuation, a differential duty issue arising in investigation, and an alleged continuing arrangement to evade countervailing duty and secure wrongful gain. Subsequent payment of duty and reliance on settlement proceedings did not displace the prima facie prosecution case, so discharge was refused and the revision failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2024 19:13:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=779278" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (9) TMI 1598 - GUJARAT HIGH CORUT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459024</link>
      <description>At the discharge stage under Section 227 CrPC, the court must only see whether the record discloses sufficient ground for proceeding and whether the material creates a prima facie case or grave suspicion; a detailed assessment of defence pleas or rival evidence is impermissible. On the facts, the record suggested clearance of goods on invoice value rather than MRP-based valuation, a differential duty issue arising in investigation, and an alleged continuing arrangement to evade countervailing duty and secure wrongful gain. Subsequent payment of duty and reliance on settlement proceedings did not displace the prima facie prosecution case, so discharge was refused and the revision failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459024</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>