Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2161 to 2180 of 96140 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Confiscation of smuggled gold bars/biscuits u/ss 111(b), 111(d), and 111(f) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants failed to establish the licit procurement of the foreign-marked gold with 99.90% purity, a notified item u/s 123, thereby not discharging their burden of proving ownership. While the gold cannot be released due to unestablished ownership, the Tribunal reduced the penalties imposed on the appellants considering the roles played and the nature of the offense, deeming the initial penalties excessive compared to the gold's value. The penalty reductions were: Appellant 1 from Rs. 6,25,000 to Rs. 3,50,000, Appellant 2 from Rs. 6,50,000 to Rs. 4,00,000, and Appellant 3 from Rs. 5,80,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 u/s 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Confiscation of smuggled gold bars/biscuits u/ss 111(b), 111(d), and 111(f) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants failed to establish the licit procurement of the foreign-marked gold with 99.90% purity, a notified item u/s 123, thereby not discharging their burden of proving ownership. While the gold cannot be released due to unestablished ownership, the Tribunal reduced the penalties imposed on the appellants considering the roles played and the nature of the offense, deeming the initial penalties excessive compared to the gold's value. The penalty reductions were: Appellant 1 from Rs. 6,25,000 to Rs. 3,50,000, Appellant 2 from Rs. 6,50,000 to Rs. 4,00,000, and Appellant 3 from Rs. 5,80,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 u/s 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
