Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The CESTAT held that the appellant could not be implicated solely based on the retracted confessional statement of the co-accused. The telephonic call between them was insufficient to establish appellant's involvement in gold smuggling. Imposing penalties u/s 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 was incorrect as there was no evidence of appellant dealing with the seized goods or having prior knowledge of their liability for confiscation. Consequently, the penalties imposed on the appellant were set aside and the appeal was allowed.
The CESTAT held that the appellant could not be implicated solely based on the retracted confessional statement of the co-accused. The telephonic call between them was insufficient to establish appellant's involvement in gold smuggling. Imposing penalties u/s 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 was incorrect as there was no evidence of appellant dealing with the seized goods or having prior knowledge of their liability for confiscation. Consequently, the penalties imposed on the appellant were set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
