https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771354 Customs exemption under Notification No. 25/1999-Cus. was applied by reference to the 1996 concessional import rules, which required registration, prescribed procedures, and use of imported goods for the intended manufacturing purpose; the record showed compliance through Central Excise registration, filing of returns, and prior surrender of the units' registrations, so denial of the exemption on the alleged non-existence of manufacturing activity was not justified. Allegations of undervaluation based on statements, CPU/e-mail printouts, and diary entries also failed because statements were not shown to satisfy Section 138B, electronic records lacked compliance with Section 138C, and the adjudication proceeded without complete relied-upon documents. The demand, penalties, and related appropriations were therefore unsustainable. en-us Thu, 15 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 May 2025 09:00:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771354 Customs exemption under Notification No. 25/1999-Cus. was applied by reference to the 1996 concessional import rules, which required registration, prescribed procedures, and use of imported goods for the intended manufacturing purpose; the record showed compliance through Central Excise registration, filing of returns, and prior surrender of the units' registrations, so denial of the exemption on the alleged non-existence of manufacturing activity was not justified. Allegations of undervaluation based on statements, CPU/e-mail printouts, and diary entries also failed because statements were not shown to satisfy Section 138B, electronic records lacked compliance with Section 138C, and the adjudication proceeded without complete relied-upon documents. The demand, penalties, and related appropriations were therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 15 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771354