Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 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 set aside the impugned order imposing a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant (customs clearing agent/employee), holding that there was no evidentiary basis to establish mens rea or active participation in diversion of imported goods subject to an advance licence; the record showed only handling of documents and no admission or statement implicating the appellant in physical delivery to an unauthorised location. For want of proof linking the appellant to the diversion or knowledge thereof, the Tribunal quashed the penalty and allowed the appeal, remitting no further relief.
The CESTAT set aside the impugned order imposing a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant (customs clearing agent/employee), holding that there was no evidentiary basis to establish mens rea or active participation in diversion of imported goods subject to an advance licence; the record showed only handling of documents and no admission or statement implicating the appellant in physical delivery to an unauthorised location. For want of proof linking the appellant to the diversion or knowledge thereof, the Tribunal quashed the penalty and allowed the appeal, remitting no further relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
