Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Page of 4782
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95636 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT Mumbai held that confiscation of imported goods and imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) of Customs Act for forged Special Import Licenses lacked clear evidence linking appellants to forgery. Delay in penalty proceedings beyond reasonable time was deemed unjustified, citing legal precedents. The order confiscating goods was upheld, but penalty imposition was deemed unsustainable. Appeal allowed in part, emphasizing lack of strong grounds for penalty imposition u/s 112(a) on appellants.
CESTAT Mumbai held that confiscation of imported goods and imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) of Customs Act for forged Special Import Licenses lacked clear evidence linking appellants to forgery. Delay in penalty proceedings beyond reasonable time was deemed unjustified, citing legal precedents. The order confiscating goods was upheld, but penalty imposition was deemed unsustainable. Appeal allowed in part, emphasizing lack of strong grounds for penalty imposition u/s 112(a) on appellants.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.