Independent manufacturing undertaking eligibility preserves Section 80IA/80IB deductions, while machinery kept ready for use qualifies for depreciatio...
Assessing Officer Satisfaction Requirement Bars Penalty for Cash Receipt in Immovable-Property Sale Cases Where Initiation Lacks Recorded Satisfaction...
Self-assessed import entries remain appealable, while bona fide classification disputes without misdeclaration cannot justify confiscation or penaltie...
Actual-user customs exemption conditions permit turnkey project transfers when imported windmill components are exclusively used for installation and ...
Customs offence disqualification excludes civil contraventions, preventing refusal of a private bonded warehouse licence based solely on monetary pena...
The appellants were found involved in smuggling one cut piece of foreign origin gold weighing 645.500 grams. A concealed the gold in his shoe to deliver it outside the airport premises, while B abetted the offense. Both were held liable for penalties u/ss 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Considering their lack of prior antecedents and not being owners or beneficiaries, the Appellate Tribunal reduced the penalties imposed on them from Rs. 5,00,000/- each to Rs. 1,00,000/- each. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
The appellants were found involved in smuggling one cut piece of foreign origin gold weighing 645.500 grams. A concealed the gold in his shoe to deliver it outside the airport premises, while B abetted the offense. Both were held liable for penalties u/ss 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Considering their lack of prior antecedents and not being owners or beneficiaries, the Appellate Tribunal reduced the penalties imposed on them from Rs. 5,00,000/- each to Rs. 1,00,000/- each. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
