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, holding that the impugned order enhancing penalty under s.112(a) of the Customs Act against the employee cannot be sustained where the employer (CHA firm) was previously exonerated of penalty on the same facts; the Tribunal found no justification for increasing the penalty from Rs.5,00,000 to Rs.20,00,000, accorded the appellant the benefit of the principle that an employee is not liable where the employer is not found guilty, and directed that the enhancement be set aside. The matter is remitted to the Commissioner to record cogent reasons if further action is contemplated; the appeal is allowed and the contested enhanced penalty vacated.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the impugned order enhancing penalty under s.112(a) of the Customs Act against the employee cannot be sustained where the employer (CHA firm) was previously exonerated of penalty on the same facts; the Tribunal found no justification for increasing the penalty from Rs.5,00,000 to Rs.20,00,000, accorded the appellant the benefit of the principle that an employee is not liable where the employer is not found guilty, and directed that the enhancement be set aside. The matter is remitted to the Commissioner to record cogent reasons if further action is contemplated; the appeal is allowed and the contested enhanced penalty vacated.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
