Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
