Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2161 to 2180 of 96140 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT held that penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 is contingent upon confiscation of goods under Section 113. Since there was no confiscation of the exported goods, penalty under Section 114 could not be imposed. The appellant was neither involved in mis-declaration nor overvaluation of export goods, and the Revenue failed to produce evidence linking the appellant to any wrongdoing. The Tribunal relied on precedent where penalty was set aside in similar circumstances. Consequently, the penalty of Rs.4,50,000 imposed under Section 114 was quashed and the appeal was allowed.
The CESTAT held that penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 is contingent upon confiscation of goods under Section 113. Since there was no confiscation of the exported goods, penalty under Section 114 could not be imposed. The appellant was neither involved in mis-declaration nor overvaluation of export goods, and the Revenue failed to produce evidence linking the appellant to any wrongdoing. The Tribunal relied on precedent where penalty was set aside in similar circumstances. Consequently, the penalty of Rs.4,50,000 imposed under Section 114 was quashed and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
