Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The CESTAT set aside the order of confiscation of 18,880 kgs of Zinc Ash and the truck bearing Registration No. UP-78DN/3179, along with the associated redemption fines, under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide corroborative evidence establishing that the goods were smuggled from Nepal, noting that the Zinc Ash was accompanied by valid GST invoices and e-way bills, which were not forged. The appellants provided credible purchase receipts and ledger entries demonstrating local procurement and sale. The goods were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, placing the onus on the Revenue to prove smuggling, which was unmet. Consequently, no violation warranting penalties under Section 112(a)/(b) was established, leading to the setting aside of penalties imposed on the appellants. The appeal was accordingly allowed and disposed of.
The CESTAT set aside the order of confiscation of 18,880 kgs of Zinc Ash and the truck bearing Registration No. UP-78DN/3179, along with the associated redemption fines, under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide corroborative evidence establishing that the goods were smuggled from Nepal, noting that the Zinc Ash was accompanied by valid GST invoices and e-way bills, which were not forged. The appellants provided credible purchase receipts and ledger entries demonstrating local procurement and sale. The goods were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, placing the onus on the Revenue to prove smuggling, which was unmet. Consequently, no violation warranting penalties under Section 112(a)/(b) was established, leading to the setting aside of penalties imposed on the appellants. The appeal was accordingly allowed and disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
