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...
CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and held...
Appeal allowed: goods not absolutely confiscable; retracted evidence cannot re-determine value under s.14 and Valuation Rules 2007; s.113/s.114(i) relief
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and held that the goods are not liable to absolute confiscation. The Tribunal found no admissible evidence of an attempt to export; reliance on a retracted, uncorroborated statement to re-determine transaction value was contrary to the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007 and s.14 of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently the confiscation under s.113 could not be sustained and the imposition of penalty under s.114(i) on the proprietor was held inapplicable. The appeal was therefore allowed and the impugned order set aside in its entirety.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and held that the goods are not liable to absolute confiscation. The Tribunal found no admissible evidence of an attempt to export; reliance on a retracted, uncorroborated statement to re-determine transaction value was contrary to the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007 and s.14 of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently the confiscation under s.113 could not be sustained and the imposition of penalty under s.114(i) on the proprietor was held inapplicable. The appeal was therefore allowed and the impugned order set aside in its entirety.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
