Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
The HC affirmed that the levy of penalty under s.114, Customs Act, 1962 was properly sustained by the adjudicating authority and CESTAT. Although the criminal acquittal of the appellants relied on the same evidence, the adjudicative bodies permissibly applied the civil preponderance of probabilities and found appellants abetted the manufacture and export of narcotic drugs by executing deliveries at the instructions of the principal instigator and accompanying co-noticees. The CESTAT did not exceed its jurisdiction in declining to treat the criminal judgment as determinative of the quasi-judicial proceedings. Both contested questions were answered for the Revenue and the departmental appeal was dismissed.
The HC affirmed that the levy of penalty under s.114, Customs Act, 1962 was properly sustained by the adjudicating authority and CESTAT. Although the criminal acquittal of the appellants relied on the same evidence, the adjudicative bodies permissibly applied the civil preponderance of probabilities and found appellants abetted the manufacture and export of narcotic drugs by executing deliveries at the instructions of the principal instigator and accompanying co-noticees. The CESTAT did not exceed its jurisdiction in declining to treat the criminal judgment as determinative of the quasi-judicial proceedings. Both contested questions were answered for the Revenue and the departmental appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
