<?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>2025 (12) TMI 1569 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784029</link>
    <description>A transferee of a licence issued by the competent authority cannot be saddled with customs duty merely because the original holder procured it through forged documents, unless the transferee is shown to be complicit or lacking bona fides. The text distinguishes a genuinely issued licence obtained by fraud from a licence that was never validly issued, and treats later cancellation as non-retrospective. It also states that statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be used as substantive evidence in adjudication unless the safeguards under section 138B are complied with, including examination of the maker and related evidentiary protections. On that basis, the demand, penalty and related confirmation could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Dec 2025 08:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=874263" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 1569 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784029</link>
      <description>A transferee of a licence issued by the competent authority cannot be saddled with customs duty merely because the original holder procured it through forged documents, unless the transferee is shown to be complicit or lacking bona fides. The text distinguishes a genuinely issued licence obtained by fraud from a licence that was never validly issued, and treats later cancellation as non-retrospective. It also states that statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be used as substantive evidence in adjudication unless the safeguards under section 138B are complied with, including examination of the maker and related evidentiary protections. On that basis, the demand, penalty and related confirmation could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784029</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>