Appeal allows marketing payments as deductible business expenses under Sec.37; director pay retained; R&D deductible from certificate date under Sec.3...
Registration under s.12AB upheld; CIT(Exemptions) exceeded jurisdiction by deciding taxability instead of preliminary verification and registration di...
CESTAT held that seized areca (betel) nuts were neither prohibited nor notified under the Customs Act, therefore the Revenue bore the evidentiary burden to prove smuggling. The Tribunal found the Revenue failed to discharge that onus; statements relied upon were insufficient to establish illegal importation from Myanmar and Indonesia or contraband status. Consequentially, the monetary penalties levied against the appellants for alleged illegal procurement and importation were found unsustainable and were set aside. The impugned penalty orders are quashed and the appeal is allowed to the extent of striking down the penalties; no further sanction may be imposed on the appellants based on the present record.
CESTAT held that seized areca (betel) nuts were neither prohibited nor notified under the Customs Act, therefore the Revenue bore the evidentiary burden to prove smuggling. The Tribunal found the Revenue failed to discharge that onus; statements relied upon were insufficient to establish illegal importation from Myanmar and Indonesia or contraband status. Consequentially, the monetary penalties levied against the appellants for alleged illegal procurement and importation were found unsustainable and were set aside. The impugned penalty orders are quashed and the appeal is allowed to the extent of striking down the penalties; no further sanction may be imposed on the appellants based on the present record.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
