Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95833 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 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
