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...
CESTAT set aside penalties imposed under s.112(a) and s.112(b) of Customs Act 1962 against appellant for alleged gold smuggling. Court found insufficient evidence beyond statements of P and Y to establish appellant's involvement in smuggling activities. While gold recovered from P and Y was confiscated under s.111 and penalties imposed on them, no independent corroborative evidence existed to prove appellant's role in the offense. Mere statements without supporting proof were deemed inadequate to sustain penalties for abetment of smuggling. Tribunal held penalty provisions require concrete evidence of acts rendering goods liable for confiscation, which was lacking against appellant.
CESTAT set aside penalties imposed under s.112(a) and s.112(b) of Customs Act 1962 against appellant for alleged gold smuggling. Court found insufficient evidence beyond statements of P and Y to establish appellant's involvement in smuggling activities. While gold recovered from P and Y was confiscated under s.111 and penalties imposed on them, no independent corroborative evidence existed to prove appellant's role in the offense. Mere statements without supporting proof were deemed inadequate to sustain penalties for abetment of smuggling. Tribunal held penalty provisions require concrete evidence of acts rendering goods liable for confiscation, which was lacking against appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
