Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96587 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 confiscation of gold and penalties imposed on the appellant were unjustified. The tribunal found that the Revenue's case relied primarily on statements that lacked evidentiary value due to non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under s.138B of the Customs Act. In this town seizure case, the Revenue failed to discharge its initial burden of proving foreign origin or smuggling of the gold. The tribunal emphasized that compliance with s.138B was not contingent upon whether cross-examination was sought, but was a mandatory procedural requirement. Conversely, the appellant produced legitimate purchase invoices which were confirmed by sellers. Without substantive evidence of smuggling, no penalty could be imposed under s.112(b). Appeal allowed.
The CESTAT held that confiscation of gold and penalties imposed on the appellant were unjustified. The tribunal found that the Revenue's case relied primarily on statements that lacked evidentiary value due to non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under s.138B of the Customs Act. In this town seizure case, the Revenue failed to discharge its initial burden of proving foreign origin or smuggling of the gold. The tribunal emphasized that compliance with s.138B was not contingent upon whether cross-examination was sought, but was a mandatory procedural requirement. Conversely, the appellant produced legitimate purchase invoices which were confirmed by sellers. Without substantive evidence of smuggling, no penalty could be imposed under s.112(b). Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.