Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 
