Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
A steamer agent's penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was set aside because it filed the IGM on the Master's declarations, promptly sought amendment on confirmation of the retained onboard cargo, and there was no evidence of conscious involvement, connivance, aiding, abetting, or deliberate suppression. The Tribunal held that a mere procedural lapse, inadvertent omission, or communication failure is insufficient for penal liability. It also ruled that retained onboard cargo which remained continuously on the vessel, was never unloaded in India, and was discharged abroad did not acquire the character of imported goods and therefore was not liable to confiscation under Section 111.
A steamer agent's penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was set aside because it filed the IGM on the Master's declarations, promptly sought amendment on confirmation of the retained onboard cargo, and there was no evidence of conscious involvement, connivance, aiding, abetting, or deliberate suppression. The Tribunal held that a mere procedural lapse, inadvertent omission, or communication failure is insufficient for penal liability. It also ruled that retained onboard cargo which remained continuously on the vessel, was never unloaded in India, and was discharged abroad did not acquire the character of imported goods and therefore was not liable to confiscation under Section 111.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
