Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4381 to 4400 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case involved a penalty u/s 112(B) of the Customs Act, 1962 against an employee of a Customs House Agent (CHA) for allegedly concealing information affecting a bill of entry assessment. The tribunal found no evidence linking the employee to the concealed branded goods in the consignment, nor any indication of his involvement in handling the goods. Goods were confiscated u/s 111(m) due to incorrect declaration, but the employee was not proven aware of the branded products. As a result, the tribunal set aside the penalty, ruling in favor of the appellant.
The case involved a penalty u/s 112(B) of the Customs Act, 1962 against an employee of a Customs House Agent (CHA) for allegedly concealing information affecting a bill of entry assessment. The tribunal found no evidence linking the employee to the concealed branded goods in the consignment, nor any indication of his involvement in handling the goods. Goods were confiscated u/s 111(m) due to incorrect declaration, but the employee was not proven aware of the branded products. As a result, the tribunal set aside the penalty, ruling in favor of the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
