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...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The penalty imposed u/s 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant (a Customs Broker) for abetting the clearance of undeclared/mis-declared export goods was reduced to Rs. 10,00,000/-. However, the penalty imposed u/s 114AA was set aside as the appellant was not responsible for forging any documents and the ingredients specified in Section 114AA were not present. The CESTAT held that the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 provide for penal action upon the Customs Broker for failing to fulfill obligations, and penal proceedings could have been initiated under the relevant provisions of the said Regulations.
The penalty imposed u/s 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant (a Customs Broker) for abetting the clearance of undeclared/mis-declared export goods was reduced to Rs. 10,00,000/-. However, the penalty imposed u/s 114AA was set aside as the appellant was not responsible for forging any documents and the ingredients specified in Section 114AA were not present. The CESTAT held that the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 provide for penal action upon the Customs Broker for failing to fulfill obligations, and penal proceedings could have been initiated under the relevant provisions of the said Regulations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
