Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Appellant's penalties u/ss 112(a), 112(b), and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 set aside. Reliance solely on co-accused statements without corroborative evidence found inadequate to establish appellant's guilt regarding mis-declaration of goods and manipulation of import documents. No evidence produced by revenue to substantiate appellant's role in arranging finance, purchasing disputed goods from China, or providing manipulated import documents. CESTAT held statements of co-accused without independent corroboration insufficient legal evidence. Lack of evidence regarding appellant's physical acts related to disputed goods or signed declarations rendered penalties unjustified. Appeal allowed.
Appellant's penalties u/ss 112(a), 112(b), and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 set aside. Reliance solely on co-accused statements without corroborative evidence found inadequate to establish appellant's guilt regarding mis-declaration of goods and manipulation of import documents. No evidence produced by revenue to substantiate appellant's role in arranging finance, purchasing disputed goods from China, or providing manipulated import documents. CESTAT held statements of co-accused without independent corroboration insufficient legal evidence. Lack of evidence regarding appellant's physical acts related to disputed goods or signed declarations rendered penalties unjustified. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
