Authority rules B+G+31 service apartment is commercial building construction, not multi-storey residential for tax classification under RERA definitio...
Resale price method upheld for distribution; assessee's margins accepted and certain transfer-pricing adjustments deleted due to documented reimbursem...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9821 to 9840 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
