Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Levy of penalty u/ss 114(i) and 114(iii) of the Customs Act without evidence of abetment in the export of red sanders. The appellant failed to obtain and verify the KYC of the exporter for whom they filed the shipping bill, violating Regulation 11 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR) 2004. They also failed to advise their client to comply with the Customs Act 1962 and the Shipping Bill of Export Regulations 1991. The Tribunal held that the violation of CHALR alone cannot constitute abetment without evidence of the appellant's knowledge about the illegal export. Mere violation of CHALR without knowledge cannot sustain penalties u/ss 114(i) and 114(iii). The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Levy of penalty u/ss 114(i) and 114(iii) of the Customs Act without evidence of abetment in the export of red sanders. The appellant failed to obtain and verify the KYC of the exporter for whom they filed the shipping bill, violating Regulation 11 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR) 2004. They also failed to advise their client to comply with the Customs Act 1962 and the Shipping Bill of Export Regulations 1991. The Tribunal held that the violation of CHALR alone cannot constitute abetment without evidence of the appellant's knowledge about the illegal export. Mere violation of CHALR without knowledge cannot sustain penalties u/ss 114(i) and 114(iii). The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.