Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The CESTAT held that the importer was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-CUS entry Sr. No. 108 description (A) for their drugs and bulk drugs, which did not involve conditions prescribed under description (B). Since the duty demand itself was unsustainable against the company, the personal penalty imposed on their employee (the appellant) u/r 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2012 for aiding or abetting duty evasion was set aside. The Tribunal observed no suppression of facts or mala fide intent by the company or the appellant in availing the notification. Relying on a Gujarat High Court decision, the personal penalty was held unsustainable for an interpretational issue. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
The CESTAT held that the importer was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-CUS entry Sr. No. 108 description (A) for their drugs and bulk drugs, which did not involve conditions prescribed under description (B). Since the duty demand itself was unsustainable against the company, the personal penalty imposed on their employee (the appellant) u/r 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2012 for aiding or abetting duty evasion was set aside. The Tribunal observed no suppression of facts or mala fide intent by the company or the appellant in availing the notification. Relying on a Gujarat High Court decision, the personal penalty was held unsustainable for an interpretational issue. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
