Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that duty recovery and penalties were unauthorised because the second proviso to the Notification had been omitted during the relevant period, thereby removing the statutory condition requiring the intermediary to execute a bond obliging export of equivalent gold within 120 days. Consequently, the revenue could not validly enforce the bond or invoke section 28AA to recover customs duty with interest; any demand premised on non-fulfilment of the deleted proviso lacked legal authority. Statements obtained under section 108 were held irrelevant for liability, the 2009 circular inapplicable, and penalties under sections 112 and 114AA (and recovery against partners/managers) unsustainable.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that duty recovery and penalties were unauthorised because the second proviso to the Notification had been omitted during the relevant period, thereby removing the statutory condition requiring the intermediary to execute a bond obliging export of equivalent gold within 120 days. Consequently, the revenue could not validly enforce the bond or invoke section 28AA to recover customs duty with interest; any demand premised on non-fulfilment of the deleted proviso lacked legal authority. Statements obtained under section 108 were held irrelevant for liability, the 2009 circular inapplicable, and penalties under sections 112 and 114AA (and recovery against partners/managers) unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.