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 allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order of absolute confiscation and penalty under Sections 111(d), 112(b), and 120 of the Customs Act, 1962, concerning the seizure of 2 kgs of gold. The Tribunal held that non-compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 138B rendered the key statement inadmissible. Without this statement, the Revenue failed to establish that the gold was smuggled or of foreign origin, as required under Section 123. The appellant successfully discharged the burden of proof by producing invoices and corroborative seller confirmations evidencing lawful possession. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) was unsustainable due to lack of material proof of smuggling. The order of confiscation and penalty was therefore quashed, and the appeal was allowed.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order of absolute confiscation and penalty under Sections 111(d), 112(b), and 120 of the Customs Act, 1962, concerning the seizure of 2 kgs of gold. The Tribunal held that non-compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 138B rendered the key statement inadmissible. Without this statement, the Revenue failed to establish that the gold was smuggled or of foreign origin, as required under Section 123. The appellant successfully discharged the burden of proof by producing invoices and corroborative seller confirmations evidencing lawful possession. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) was unsustainable due to lack of material proof of smuggling. The order of confiscation and penalty was therefore quashed, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
