Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The CESTAT upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant's proprietor for importing goods through fictitious firms using fraudulently obtained IECs, confirming the competence of DRI officers to issue the SCN. The Tribunal held that goods imported in violation of the FTDR Act qualify as prohibited goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, even if not physically available. Penalty under Section 112 was justified as it applies to acts rendering goods liable to confiscation. The appellant's claim of ex parte proceedings was rejected due to adequate opportunities for hearing. The appeal was dismissed, affirming penalty imposition and modifying the order to declare the imported goods liable for confiscation despite unavailability.
The CESTAT upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant's proprietor for importing goods through fictitious firms using fraudulently obtained IECs, confirming the competence of DRI officers to issue the SCN. The Tribunal held that goods imported in violation of the FTDR Act qualify as prohibited goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, even if not physically available. Penalty under Section 112 was justified as it applies to acts rendering goods liable to confiscation. The appellant's claim of ex parte proceedings was rejected due to adequate opportunities for hearing. The appeal was dismissed, affirming penalty imposition and modifying the order to declare the imported goods liable for confiscation despite unavailability.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
