Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Approved resolution plans extinguish unsubmitted pre-approval tax claims, preventing later recovery outside the insolvency process and preserving a cl...
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
