Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
CESTAT allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned order of confiscation and set aside penalties imposed under s.112 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to discharge the statutory burden under s.123 to prove the goods were smuggled or of foreign/Nepali origin; no admissible expert opinion or evidentiary material was produced to establish foreign origin, and the appellant's contemporaneous purchase records from local farmers were not refuted by concrete findings. Because the seized peas are not specified under s.123, confiscation could not be sustained on the record, and the consequential penal imposition under s.112 was accordingly annulled.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned order of confiscation and set aside penalties imposed under s.112 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to discharge the statutory burden under s.123 to prove the goods were smuggled or of foreign/Nepali origin; no admissible expert opinion or evidentiary material was produced to establish foreign origin, and the appellant's contemporaneous purchase records from local farmers were not refuted by concrete findings. Because the seized peas are not specified under s.123, confiscation could not be sustained on the record, and the consequential penal imposition under s.112 was accordingly annulled.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.