Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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 4827 
Join Channel 
