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 found lack of jurisdiction in invoking section 28AAA without DGFT cancellation of the export instrument. The evidence relied upon was deemed inadmissible, specifically statements under section 108 of the Customs Act. Penalties under sections 114AA and 114(iii) were invalidated as the title of goods passed upon Let Export Order, and no conclusive proof of intentional misconduct was established. The tribunal emphasized that customs authorities cannot unilaterally challenge an export instrument without DGFT's formal cancellation proceedings.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the Principal Commissioner's order dated 29.05.2019. The tribunal found lack of jurisdiction in invoking section 28AAA without DGFT cancellation of the export instrument. The evidence relied upon was deemed inadmissible, specifically statements under section 108 of the Customs Act. Penalties under sections 114AA and 114(iii) were invalidated as the title of goods passed upon Let Export Order, and no conclusive proof of intentional misconduct was established. The tribunal emphasized that customs authorities cannot unilaterally challenge an export instrument without DGFT's formal cancellation proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
