Preliminary reassessment proceedings generally require statutory remedies unless jurisdiction is wholly absent or mandatory conditions are patently br...
Agricultural land classification requires cumulative factual indicators, while industrial-purpose land and absent agricultural use defeat reinvestment...
Composite residential flat exemption upheld where supplementary agreement merged adjoining units and additional evidence supported the taxpayer's inve...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty under s.112, Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found the appellant acted solely as a broker for commission and that the impugned order rested only on uncorroborated inculpatory statements which the appellant retracted. Statements recorded under s.108 were inadmissible in adjudication as the procedural safeguards in s.138B (examination/cross-examination) were not satisfied. The adjudicator failed to demonstrate how the alleged commercial link implicated the appellant in over-invoicing or circular trading. Further, s.112 was inapplicable: no prohibition was in force, no duty was payable, alleged value was not higher than declared, and no duty evasion was established.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty under s.112, Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found the appellant acted solely as a broker for commission and that the impugned order rested only on uncorroborated inculpatory statements which the appellant retracted. Statements recorded under s.108 were inadmissible in adjudication as the procedural safeguards in s.138B (examination/cross-examination) were not satisfied. The adjudicator failed to demonstrate how the alleged commercial link implicated the appellant in over-invoicing or circular trading. Further, s.112 was inapplicable: no prohibition was in force, no duty was payable, alleged value was not higher than declared, and no duty evasion was established.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
