Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the confiscation, redemption fine and penalty imposed under Sections 111(b) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held the Department failed to adduce corroborative evidence establishing foreign origin or illegal importation of the seized dry dates; expert testing lacked probative value and third-party trader opinions based on naked-eye inspection constituted inadmissible hearsay. The record did not disclose any inquiry or material justifying a belief that the consignment contravened the relevant notification, rendering the seizure and consequent punitive measures founded on assumption and presumption. No liability under Section 112(b) was established against the appellant.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the confiscation, redemption fine and penalty imposed under Sections 111(b) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held the Department failed to adduce corroborative evidence establishing foreign origin or illegal importation of the seized dry dates; expert testing lacked probative value and third-party trader opinions based on naked-eye inspection constituted inadmissible hearsay. The record did not disclose any inquiry or material justifying a belief that the consignment contravened the relevant notification, rendering the seizure and consequent punitive measures founded on assumption and presumption. No liability under Section 112(b) was established against the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.