Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The appellants, who were neither exporters nor Customs House Agents (CHAs), were wrongly penalized u/ss 114 and 114AA for overvaluation of goods for claiming excess duty drawback. The alleged kickback of 40-60% drawback to the appellants lacked documentary evidence. One appellant's contradictory statements could not be relied upon, and the adjudicating authority failed to cross-examine witnesses. As mere employees acting on instructions, the appellants did not benefit from the exporter's attempt to claim excess drawback. The penalties imposed on the appellants were set aside by the Appellate Tribunal.
The appellants, who were neither exporters nor Customs House Agents (CHAs), were wrongly penalized u/ss 114 and 114AA for overvaluation of goods for claiming excess duty drawback. The alleged kickback of 40-60% drawback to the appellants lacked documentary evidence. One appellant's contradictory statements could not be relied upon, and the adjudicating authority failed to cross-examine witnesses. As mere employees acting on instructions, the appellants did not benefit from the exporter's attempt to claim excess drawback. The penalties imposed on the appellants were set aside by the Appellate Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
