Depreciation and routine compliance expenses disallowance did not prove inaccurate particulars or misreporting; penalty sustained only on foreign trav...
Page of 4823
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3381 to 3400 of 96456 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT adjudicated a customs export scheme dispute involving penalty provisions under sections 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal ruled that statements recorded under section 108 cannot be considered admissible evidence under section 138B without proper cross-examination procedures. The tribunal found the penalty imposition against the parties was unsupported by substantive evidence, specifically rejecting statements recorded without procedural safeguards. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, effectively quashing the penalties imposed on the exporters for alleged improper diversion of goods under the Focus Market Scheme.
CESTAT adjudicated a customs export scheme dispute involving penalty provisions under sections 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal ruled that statements recorded under section 108 cannot be considered admissible evidence under section 138B without proper cross-examination procedures. The tribunal found the penalty imposition against the parties was unsupported by substantive evidence, specifically rejecting statements recorded without procedural safeguards. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, effectively quashing the penalties imposed on the exporters for alleged improper diversion of goods under the Focus Market Scheme.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
