Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside penalties imposed on the appellant under s.112(a) and s.114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found the appellant acted solely as agent of the foreign supplier and had sought first check assessment but was denied access; therefore there was no material to sustain a finding that the appellant aided or abetted duty evasion, rendering s.112(a) inapplicable. Further, s.114AA was held inapplicable because it penalizes fraudulent export claims for export benefits, whereas the transaction involved importation; consequently s.114AA could not be invoked. The impugned penalties were quashed and the appeal allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside penalties imposed on the appellant under s.112(a) and s.114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found the appellant acted solely as agent of the foreign supplier and had sought first check assessment but was denied access; therefore there was no material to sustain a finding that the appellant aided or abetted duty evasion, rendering s.112(a) inapplicable. Further, s.114AA was held inapplicable because it penalizes fraudulent export claims for export benefits, whereas the transaction involved importation; consequently s.114AA could not be invoked. The impugned penalties were quashed and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
