Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2541 to 2560 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act was unsustainable because the Revenue failed to prove the appellant's conscious involvement in the alleged smuggling or abetment with admissible evidence. The Tribunal held that the discarded statement of a co-noticee, which was not subjected to cross-examination as required under Section 138B, could not form the basis of penal action. It further found no corroboration from any seizure record, panchanama, incriminating document, financial link, communication trail, or role in import clearance. In the absence of tangible evidence connecting the appellant with the 5 live consignments or the earlier 26 consignments, both penalties were set aside.
Penalty under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act was unsustainable because the Revenue failed to prove the appellant's conscious involvement in the alleged smuggling or abetment with admissible evidence. The Tribunal held that the discarded statement of a co-noticee, which was not subjected to cross-examination as required under Section 138B, could not form the basis of penal action. It further found no corroboration from any seizure record, panchanama, incriminating document, financial link, communication trail, or role in import clearance. In the absence of tangible evidence connecting the appellant with the 5 live consignments or the earlier 26 consignments, both penalties were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
