Topic
Admissibility of evidence in Indian courts refers to whether statements, documents, or reports comply with statutory procedures and the Indian Evidence Act to be legally accepted in proceedings.
Karnataka High Court rules that belated filing of secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act requires explicit pleadings explaining the original document's unavailability. Failure to comply renders the evidence inadmissible, reinforcing procedural rigor in civil suits.
CESTAT rules that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be used for customs valuation or penalty imposition unless they are formally admitted in evidence through witness examination under Section 138B. This holding reinforces procedural safeguards in customs investigations, impacting how digital and documentary evidence is treated in adjudication.
CESTAT quashes excise demand and penalties, ruling that extended limitation under Section 11A(4) cannot be invoked if the department was fully aware of the transactions. The judgment reaffirms that suppression of facts must be deliberate for extended limitation to apply, impacting tax assessments where transparency exists.
MP High Court rules that statements recorded by insurance investigators lack legal sanctity under the Evidence Act, as they are not empowered by statute. The ruling bars insurers from relying on such reports to contest accident claims, reinforcing procedural safeguards for claimants.
Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that an insurer’s investigator report lacking proper foundation-such as unverified YouTube videos and unexamined witnesses-cannot shift the burden of proof to the claimant. The insurer must independently establish that the vehicle was uninsured to deny liability under the Motor Vehicles Act.
CESTAT Chennai ruled that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be relied upon for customs valuation or penalty imposition unless the mandatory procedure under Section 138B is followed. This holding reinforces procedural safeguards for importers and beneficial owners, limiting arbitrary reliance on uncorroborated statements in customs disputes.
Supreme Court holds that evidence seized during illegal search under PCPNDT Act remains admissible if relevant and genuine, upholding prosecution despite procedural flaws.
The Customs Appellate Tribunal holds that penalty under Section 112 cannot be imposed solely on statements recorded under Section 108 without complying with mandatory admissibility procedures under Section 138B.
The Customs Appellate Tribunal holds that where gold lacks foreign marking and the accused is not the possessor or owner, the burden under Section 123 shifts to the Revenue.