Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Public servant status under anti-corruption law extends to recognised stock exchange leadership; constitutional and sanction challenges do not succeed...
Acquiescence, homebuyer protection and clean-slate resolution principles prevent landowners from disrupting an integrated project through late termina...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1501 to 1520 of 96333 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 4817 
Join Channel 
