Customs valuation and classification require comparable evidence and assessment of imported goods in their actual condition, invalidating related pena...
Terminal gate verification for transshipment containers shifts to operators, while Customs controls and discrepancy reporting requirements remain mand...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC allowed the petition, holding that the 200% penalty levied under s.129 CGST/WBGST was unwarranted and ordering the appellate and original orders set aside. The court found no evidence of mens rea to evade tax, accepted the appellants' undisputed plea of traffic-induced delay and applied the statutory 8-hour extension available to transporter/owner/supplier, leaving only a residual delay which revenue failed to characterise as mala fide. In consequence the HC directed the appropriate departmental authority to refund the penalty already recovered upon receipt of an application by the appellants within eight weeks. The imposition of penalty in a mechanical manner was declared unjustified.
The HC allowed the petition, holding that the 200% penalty levied under s.129 CGST/WBGST was unwarranted and ordering the appellate and original orders set aside. The court found no evidence of mens rea to evade tax, accepted the appellants' undisputed plea of traffic-induced delay and applied the statutory 8-hour extension available to transporter/owner/supplier, leaving only a residual delay which revenue failed to characterise as mala fide. In consequence the HC directed the appropriate departmental authority to refund the penalty already recovered upon receipt of an application by the appellants within eight weeks. The imposition of penalty in a mechanical manner was declared unjustified.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
