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...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order which had imposed a monetary penalty of Rs.50,000 under Regulation 18 of the CBLR, 2013 for alleged breach of Regulation 11(n). The Tribunal found that, although non-compliance with Regulation 11(n) (failure to verify the declared address of the exporter) was established, the Appellant was not shown to have abetted mis-declaration, benefited from, or participated in fraudulent export transactions. In view of absence of culpability in the fraudulent draw-back scheme, the penalty was held improper and untenable; consequential revocation/forfeiture measures imposed against the Appellant were set aside and the appeal was allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order which had imposed a monetary penalty of Rs.50,000 under Regulation 18 of the CBLR, 2013 for alleged breach of Regulation 11(n). The Tribunal found that, although non-compliance with Regulation 11(n) (failure to verify the declared address of the exporter) was established, the Appellant was not shown to have abetted mis-declaration, benefited from, or participated in fraudulent export transactions. In view of absence of culpability in the fraudulent draw-back scheme, the penalty was held improper and untenable; consequential revocation/forfeiture measures imposed against the Appellant were set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
