Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the Principal Commissioner's order dated 29.05.2019. The tribunal held that the customs authority lacked jurisdiction to invoke section 28AAA without DGFT cancellation of the export instrument. The evidence relied upon was deemed inadmissible, specifically the statements under section 108 of the Customs Act. Consequently, the penalties under sections 114AA and 114(iii) were quashed, and the goods confiscation was set aside. The decision emphasized that the exporter's liability cannot be established without proper documentary proof and DGFT's explicit cancellation of the export license.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the Principal Commissioner's order dated 29.05.2019. The tribunal held that the customs authority lacked jurisdiction to invoke section 28AAA without DGFT cancellation of the export instrument. The evidence relied upon was deemed inadmissible, specifically the statements under section 108 of the Customs Act. Consequently, the penalties under sections 114AA and 114(iii) were quashed, and the goods confiscation was set aside. The decision emphasized that the exporter's liability cannot be established without proper documentary proof and DGFT's explicit cancellation of the export license.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
