Notification No. 12/97-Customs(N.T.) amendment adds Malur Inland Container Depot in Karnataka to authorized locations for import unloading and export ...
Authority rules B+G+31 service apartment is commercial building construction, not multi-storey residential for tax classification under RERA definitio...
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 4828 
Join Channel 
