PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
CESTAT set aside the penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 as against Appellant No. 1, holding that the record contains no direct evidence linking him to the alleged smuggling and that investigative witnesses material to the Panchanama were either not present throughout the operation or were not produced for cross-examination. The tribunal also found breach of principles of natural justice with respect to Appellant No. 2 due to failure to procure Panch witnesses for cross-examination and insufficient evidence of possession of the seized gold. Consequently, the penalty on Appellant No. 2 was reduced from Rs.75,00,000 to Rs.10,00,000 and the impugned order as to penalties was otherwise modified and the appeal disposed.
CESTAT set aside the penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 as against Appellant No. 1, holding that the record contains no direct evidence linking him to the alleged smuggling and that investigative witnesses material to the Panchanama were either not present throughout the operation or were not produced for cross-examination. The tribunal also found breach of principles of natural justice with respect to Appellant No. 2 due to failure to procure Panch witnesses for cross-examination and insufficient evidence of possession of the seized gold. Consequently, the penalty on Appellant No. 2 was reduced from Rs.75,00,000 to Rs.10,00,000 and the impugned order as to penalties was otherwise modified and the appeal disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
