https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771659 CESTAT NEW DELHI set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order confirming differential customs duty demand based on alleged fake invoices and undervaluation. The Tribunal held that printouts from recovered hard disk lacked proper authentication regarding date, source, and witnessing procedures. Statement under section 108 of Customs Act was inadmissible as evidence per section 138B provisions. Extended limitation period under section 28(1) proviso was improperly invoked without adequate examination by lower authorities. Consequently, penalties under sections 112 and 114AA were unjustified and unsustainable, resulting in appeals being allowed. en-us Thu, 08 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 May 2025 08:41:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771659 CESTAT NEW DELHI set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order confirming differential customs duty demand based on alleged fake invoices and undervaluation. The Tribunal held that printouts from recovered hard disk lacked proper authentication regarding date, source, and witnessing procedures. Statement under section 108 of Customs Act was inadmissible as evidence per section 138B provisions. Extended limitation period under section 28(1) proviso was improperly invoked without adequate examination by lower authorities. Consequently, penalties under sections 112 and 114AA were unjustified and unsustainable, resulting in appeals being allowed. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 08 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771659