Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
901 to 920 of 96257 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 4813 
Join Channel 
