Handicraft job work receives concessional GST only for registered principals and predominantly handmade goods; commercial resin articles remain taxabl...
Reassessment disclosure requirements permit stated reasons without revealing information sources, but prior-taxation claims require full examination b...
Independent assessment discretion and corroborated electronic evidence determine validity of on-money additions and undisclosed-consideration assessme...
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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
