Restriction of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A applies only to fraudulently or ineligible availed credit; mere wrongful recipient availment is insuffi...
CESTAT held that the alleged failure to obtain acknowledged intimation of appointment of a qualified person was, on the facts, a procedural irregularity and not a grave breach warranting revocation of the Customs Broker licence or forfeiture of the security deposit. The Department relied only on absence of record and produced no positive evidence of deliberate non-compliance, while there was no allegation of fraud, misdeclaration or revenue loss. Applying proportionality, the Tribunal distinguished authorities involving complete absence of a qualified person and conscious nondisclosure. It nevertheless upheld the penalty because the broker showed lack of due diligence in maintaining proper documentation and regulatory compliance.
CESTAT held that the alleged failure to obtain acknowledged intimation of appointment of a qualified person was, on the facts, a procedural irregularity and not a grave breach warranting revocation of the Customs Broker licence or forfeiture of the security deposit. The Department relied only on absence of record and produced no positive evidence of deliberate non-compliance, while there was no allegation of fraud, misdeclaration or revenue loss. Applying proportionality, the Tribunal distinguished authorities involving complete absence of a qualified person and conscious nondisclosure. It nevertheless upheld the penalty because the broker showed lack of due diligence in maintaining proper documentation and regulatory compliance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
