Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
