Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The CESTAT upheld the imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, against the appellant for smuggling 11,233.370 grams of foreign-origin gold. The tribunal rejected the appellant's claim of denial of opportunity for cross-examination and voluntariness of his statement under Section 108, deeming these contentions as afterthoughts unsupported by prior complaints. The recovery of smuggled gold from the appellant's possession was undisputed, with no claimant asserting ownership. The appellant's knowledge of the illicit nature of the consignment was established through his own statement and corroborative evidence. Considering the appellant's habitual involvement in smuggling and the substantial value of the confiscated gold exceeding Rs 3 crore, the penalty of Rs 10,00,000/- was affirmed as appropriate and not excessive. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in its entirety.
The CESTAT upheld the imposition of penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, against the appellant for smuggling 11,233.370 grams of foreign-origin gold. The tribunal rejected the appellant's claim of denial of opportunity for cross-examination and voluntariness of his statement under Section 108, deeming these contentions as afterthoughts unsupported by prior complaints. The recovery of smuggled gold from the appellant's possession was undisputed, with no claimant asserting ownership. The appellant's knowledge of the illicit nature of the consignment was established through his own statement and corroborative evidence. Considering the appellant's habitual involvement in smuggling and the substantial value of the confiscated gold exceeding Rs 3 crore, the penalty of Rs 10,00,000/- was affirmed as appropriate and not excessive. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in its entirety.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
