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...
The Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the appeal, setting aside the...
Export obligation removed by notification, customs duty demand invalidated; penalties under s.112 and s.114AA quashed due to inadmissible s.108 statements
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the appeal, setting aside the adjudicating order of the Principal Commissioner which confirmed duty forgone and imposed penalties. The demand for customs duty was held without authority of law because the proviso requiring bond/execution obligations had been omitted by subsequent notification, so the export-obligation condition did not subsist for the relevant period. The penalty under s.112 CA was quashed because statements recorded under s.108 CA were inadmissible absent the procedural safeguards of s.138B (witness examination and opportunity for cross-examination). The penalty under s.114AA CA against the proprietor was likewise set aside. The appeal was allowed and impugned order set aside.
The Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the appeal, setting aside the adjudicating order of the Principal Commissioner which confirmed duty forgone and imposed penalties. The demand for customs duty was held without authority of law because the proviso requiring bond/execution obligations had been omitted by subsequent notification, so the export-obligation condition did not subsist for the relevant period. The penalty under s.112 CA was quashed because statements recorded under s.108 CA were inadmissible absent the procedural safeguards of s.138B (witness examination and opportunity for cross-examination). The penalty under s.114AA CA against the proprietor was likewise set aside. The appeal was allowed and impugned order set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
