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...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
CESTAT analyzed the admissibility of statements under sections 108 and 138B of the Customs Act, determining that statements cannot be relied upon if procedural requirements are not followed. The tribunal found no substantive evidence beyond the challenged statement to support penalty imposition. Consequently, the penalty under section 114 was set aside, as confiscation under section 113(d) was unsustainable since export had occurred. The appellate order quashed the commissioner's penalty order, effectively ruling in favor of the appellant by invalidating the challenged penalty based on procedural and evidentiary deficiencies.
CESTAT analyzed the admissibility of statements under sections 108 and 138B of the Customs Act, determining that statements cannot be relied upon if procedural requirements are not followed. The tribunal found no substantive evidence beyond the challenged statement to support penalty imposition. Consequently, the penalty under section 114 was set aside, as confiscation under section 113(d) was unsustainable since export had occurred. The appellate order quashed the commissioner's penalty order, effectively ruling in favor of the appellant by invalidating the challenged penalty based on procedural and evidentiary deficiencies.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.