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...
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.