Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1001 to 1020 of 95872 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 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
