Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
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 4915 
