The accused denied bail over alleged GST credential misuse to commit Rs.1,09,11,404 fraud involving multiple proprietorships; investigation to continu...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9701 to 9720 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" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders, holding that the appellants did not mis-declare freight in shipping bills and thus are not liable to confiscation or to penalties under ss.114 and 114AA of the CA, 1962. The Tribunal found declarations of average freight permissible under Board Circular No.44/2000 where actual freight was unknown; the appellants' failure to review declared freight after learning actual costs was a lapse, not deliberate mis-declaration aimed at excess drawback. Absent proof of knowingly false declaration or contravention of the published freight schedule, and given the adjudicatory record's silence on mandatory test-check procedures, neither confiscation nor penalties could be sustained.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders, holding that the appellants did not mis-declare freight in shipping bills and thus are not liable to confiscation or to penalties under ss.114 and 114AA of the CA, 1962. The Tribunal found declarations of average freight permissible under Board Circular No.44/2000 where actual freight was unknown; the appellants' failure to review declared freight after learning actual costs was a lapse, not deliberate mis-declaration aimed at excess drawback. Absent proof of knowingly false declaration or contravention of the published freight schedule, and given the adjudicatory record's silence on mandatory test-check procedures, neither confiscation nor penalties could be sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
