Country of Origin Certificates and declared transaction value supported preferential customs exemption where authenticity and invoice prices remained ...
Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
The High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) correctly set aside the order imposing penalties u/ss 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The Department failed to follow the procedure u/s 138B of the Act by denying the exporter's request to cross-examine the Chemical Examiner whose report formed the basis of the allegations. The CESTAT rightly found that the statements relied upon could not be used as relevant evidence without affording the exporter an opportunity for cross-examination, as mandated by Section 138B, unless exceptional circumstances existed, which were not present in this case. The High Court upheld the CESTAT's decision, as no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) correctly set aside the order imposing penalties u/ss 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The Department failed to follow the procedure u/s 138B of the Act by denying the exporter's request to cross-examine the Chemical Examiner whose report formed the basis of the allegations. The CESTAT rightly found that the statements relied upon could not be used as relevant evidence without affording the exporter an opportunity for cross-examination, as mandated by Section 138B, unless exceptional circumstances existed, which were not present in this case. The High Court upheld the CESTAT's decision, as no substantial question of law arose.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
