Proportionality in company penalty quantification requires aggravating and mitigating factors; mechanical multiplication of director liability is impe...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3261 to 3280 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed appellants' appeals, setting aside customs duty demand and penalty. The tribunal found no sustainable evidence of undervaluation, non-compliance with notification requirements, or procedural irregularities. Electronic evidence and investigation statements were deemed inadmissible due to non-compliance with Sections 138B and 138C of Customs Act. The tribunal ordered refund of Rs. 1,21,73,905/- paid during investigation within 60 days, effectively exonerating the appellants of all charges related to customs duty evasion and undervaluation.
CESTAT allowed appellants' appeals, setting aside customs duty demand and penalty. The tribunal found no sustainable evidence of undervaluation, non-compliance with notification requirements, or procedural irregularities. Electronic evidence and investigation statements were deemed inadmissible due to non-compliance with Sections 138B and 138C of Customs Act. The tribunal ordered refund of Rs. 1,21,73,905/- paid during investigation within 60 days, effectively exonerating the appellants of all charges related to customs duty evasion and undervaluation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
