Administrative fraud classification suspension does not halt independent criminal investigation or warrant-based searches into alleged economic offenc...
Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Page of 4788
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
481 to 500 of 95752 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 held that the expression 'liable to penalty' u/s 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 means that a person who knowingly makes a false declaration may be penalised, but it does not mandate imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority has discretion to judicially decide whether to impose penalty or not. Even if the case is decided against the appellant's firm for misdeclaration of machinery's year of manufacture to obtain EPCG license, the appellant cannot be penalised u/s 114AA as the alleged misdeclaration was not in any proceeding under the Customs Act but under the Foreign Trade Policy. Therefore, the appeal against the penalty imposed on the appellant u/s 114AA was allowed.
The CESTAT held that the expression 'liable to penalty' u/s 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 means that a person who knowingly makes a false declaration may be penalised, but it does not mandate imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority has discretion to judicially decide whether to impose penalty or not. Even if the case is decided against the appellant's firm for misdeclaration of machinery's year of manufacture to obtain EPCG license, the appellant cannot be penalised u/s 114AA as the alleged misdeclaration was not in any proceeding under the Customs Act but under the Foreign Trade Policy. Therefore, the appeal against the penalty imposed on the appellant u/s 114AA was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
