Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.36 seconds)Documents citing
M/S.Thiru Rani Logistic Private Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Customs ... on 8 January, 2019
Navin Jain vs Union Of India on 13 August, 2024
and Him Logistic Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, 2016 (336) ELT 15 (Del.), it has been vehemently argued that unless the statement recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act is testified during due process of cross examination it cannot be relied upon. Section 136 of the CGST Act will only come into play at the time when the trial commences and thus the admission made by a person before the revenue officials under the CGST Act would not be per se admissible in evidence unless it receives the approval of the Court. It is also submitted that the department itself has violated its own Circular dated 17.8.2022 regarding the arrest and bail in the matter of CGST Act, 2017.
Saarthee Shipping Co vs Kandla Customs on 12 March, 2026
Mumbai)
• Shakti Cargo Movers v. CC- 2023 (9) TMI 1389- CESTAT New Delhi
• Thiru Rani Logistic Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus., Chennai-VIII - 2019
(365) E.L.T. 856 (Mad.)
• Aradhya Export Import Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of
Customs (Airport and General) 2024 (7) TMI 1174 - DELHI HIGH COURT
2.1 Relying on above decisions, he pleads that a sympathetic attitude needs
to be taken against the appellant by setting aside the impugned order. He
mentions that the department has alleged violation of Regulation 10(d), 10(e),
10(f) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 which do not hold ground in the light of facts
of the case. He alleges that the principles of natural justice have not been
followed while passing the order which also fails to show urgency requiring
immediate suspension of CB Licence after almost four years of the incident.
The order is also vitiated by delay and lapses. He therefore pleads for
consideration of above grounds by this Tribunal for setting aside the
suspension order.
1