Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, holding that the penalty and confiscation orders exceeded the scope of the SCN, which invoked Section 28 of the Customs Act without specifically invoking Section 28(4) required for extended period demands. The failure to invoke Section 28(4) rendered the penalty under Section 114A unsustainable. No evidence supported applicability of Sections 132 or 135 regarding improper export, and the penalty under Section 114A was imposed without proper notice. Confiscation under Section 113 was also invalid as no specific clause was cited, and the goods had already been exported and were unavailable for confiscation. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's actions were legally untenable and quashed the penalty and confiscation orders.
The CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, holding that the penalty and confiscation orders exceeded the scope of the SCN, which invoked Section 28 of the Customs Act without specifically invoking Section 28(4) required for extended period demands. The failure to invoke Section 28(4) rendered the penalty under Section 114A unsustainable. No evidence supported applicability of Sections 132 or 135 regarding improper export, and the penalty under Section 114A was imposed without proper notice. Confiscation under Section 113 was also invalid as no specific clause was cited, and the goods had already been exported and were unavailable for confiscation. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's actions were legally untenable and quashed the penalty and confiscation orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
