Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
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 
