Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
681 to 700 of 95999 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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
