Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 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" ?
The CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalties imposed u/s 114A of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that penalty u/s 114A can only be imposed when duty is payable. In this case, the duty was payable by M/s. BGH Exim Ltd (seller of goods), which had already been paid and settled under the Settlement Commission. Furthermore, the demand in the show cause notice proposing joint and several liability for duty on M/s. BGH Exim Ltd and the appellants was legally untenable, as duty cannot be demanded jointly and severally. Since the duty was confirmed only against M/s. BGH Exim Ltd, there was no reason to impose penalty u/s 114A on the appellants.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalties imposed u/s 114A of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that penalty u/s 114A can only be imposed when duty is payable. In this case, the duty was payable by M/s. BGH Exim Ltd (seller of goods), which had already been paid and settled under the Settlement Commission. Furthermore, the demand in the show cause notice proposing joint and several liability for duty on M/s. BGH Exim Ltd and the appellants was legally untenable, as duty cannot be demanded jointly and severally. Since the duty was confirmed only against M/s. BGH Exim Ltd, there was no reason to impose penalty u/s 114A on the appellants.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
