Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
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 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
