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...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Page of 4788
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
421 to 440 of 95749 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty u/s 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, cannot be imposed...
Penalty u/s 78 cannot be imposed with penalty u/s 76 for same offense. Nizam Sugar Factory case applies sans fraud, etc. Demand u/s 73(1) only when no fraud.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Penalty u/s 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, cannot be imposed simultaneously with penalty u/s 76 for the same offense. The decision in Nizam Sugar Factory case applies to recurring show cause notices, where ingredients like fraud, collusion, willful mis-statement, or intent to evade duty are not involved. Demand u/s 73(1) can be made only when these ingredients are absent; otherwise, the proviso to Section 73(1) should be invoked. Different yardsticks for imposing penalties u/ss 76 and 78 cannot be adopted. The Commissioner's order refraining from imposing penalty u/s 78 is correct and legal, and the Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
Penalty u/s 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, cannot be imposed simultaneously with penalty u/s 76 for the same offense. The decision in Nizam Sugar Factory case applies to recurring show cause notices, where ingredients like fraud, collusion, willful mis-statement, or intent to evade duty are not involved. Demand u/s 73(1) can be made only when these ingredients are absent; otherwise, the proviso to Section 73(1) should be invoked. Different yardsticks for imposing penalties u/ss 76 and 78 cannot be adopted. The Commissioner's order refraining from imposing penalty u/s 78 is correct and legal, and the Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.