Omitted specified domestic transaction provision invalidates related-party expenditure transfer-pricing references and assessments based on consequent...
Preventive suspension requires an immediate continuing threat and cannot become indefinite without inquiry, fresh evidence, or proportionate safeguard...
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 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
