Export obligation removed by notification, customs duty demand invalidated; penalties under s.112 and s.114AA quashed due to inadmissible s.108 statem...
Customs officers must wear and use department-issued body-worn cameras when clearing passenger baggage, with daily secure transfer and 30-day retentio...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
10041 to 10060 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT allowed the appeal in part, setting aside confirmation of penalties under s.77 and s.78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal found the appellant had been granted personal hearing, had filed ST-3 returns and paid the re-determined service tax (including the s.35F pre-deposit as read with s.83), and that the proceedings were based on data furnished by the appellant to the Income Tax authorities. There was no evidence of deliberate suppression, fraud or collusion warranting invocation of the extended limitation proviso. In consequence, penalty imposition was held legally untenable and the impugned order modified accordingly.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal in part, setting aside confirmation of penalties under s.77 and s.78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal found the appellant had been granted personal hearing, had filed ST-3 returns and paid the re-determined service tax (including the s.35F pre-deposit as read with s.83), and that the proceedings were based on data furnished by the appellant to the Income Tax authorities. There was no evidence of deliberate suppression, fraud or collusion warranting invocation of the extended limitation proviso. In consequence, penalty imposition was held legally untenable and the impugned order modified accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
