Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
Customs case involving alleged undervaluation of imported goods and demand of illegal gratification by a Customs officer. The Tribunal found the statements of co-accused relied upon by the adjudicating authority were not reliable evidence against the appellant as cross-examination was denied. No specific allegation proved that the appellant's act rendered the goods liable for confiscation. Statements did not implicate appellant in receiving money. Penalties u/ss 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act were set aside as there was no sustainable ground to impose them on the appellant. The order imposing penalties could not be upheld due to lack of evidence.
Customs case involving alleged undervaluation of imported goods and demand of illegal gratification by a Customs officer. The Tribunal found the statements of co-accused relied upon by the adjudicating authority were not reliable evidence against the appellant as cross-examination was denied. No specific allegation proved that the appellant's act rendered the goods liable for confiscation. Statements did not implicate appellant in receiving money. Penalties u/ss 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act were set aside as there was no sustainable ground to impose them on the appellant. The order imposing penalties could not be upheld due to lack of evidence.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
