Captive power transfer pricing and non-resident export commission rules support deletion of adjustments and withholding disallowance in discussed proc...
Cooperative society deposits, member-interest TDS exemption and credit-facility deduction claims require verification through records and supporting e...
Customs jurisdiction over EPCG condition breaches survives export-obligation discharge certificates, requiring alleged fraud and misdeclaration to be ...
Contractual tolerance requires consideration; breach recoveries, qualifying public infrastructure services and road works escape service tax liability...
HC held that both appellants must be given opportunity to cross-examine witness Mr. B under Section 138(B) of Customs Act, addressing discriminatory treatment by CESTAT which upheld penalties against one appellant while adopting opposite approach for similarly situated co-appellant. While cross-examination is not an unfettered right in all customs proceedings, principles of natural justice require it when witness statements form basis of penalties under Sections 112 and 114A. Court directed single-day cross-examination with possibility of one extension, after which authority shall adjudicate matter per law. Court emphasized that information from statutory authorities doesn't automatically warrant cross-examination but circumstances of this case necessitated equal treatment of both appellants regarding examination rights.
HC held that both appellants must be given opportunity to cross-examine witness Mr. B under Section 138(B) of Customs Act, addressing discriminatory treatment by CESTAT which upheld penalties against one appellant while adopting opposite approach for similarly situated co-appellant. While cross-examination is not an unfettered right in all customs proceedings, principles of natural justice require it when witness statements form basis of penalties under Sections 112 and 114A. Court directed single-day cross-examination with possibility of one extension, after which authority shall adjudicate matter per law. Court emphasized that information from statutory authorities doesn't automatically warrant cross-examination but circumstances of this case necessitated equal treatment of both appellants regarding examination rights.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
