Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
CESTAT allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order and quashed penalties and confiscation measures. The Tribunal held penalties under s.114(iii) and s.114AA could not be sustained against certain partners and firms because there was no evidence of their knowledge, collusion or acts rendering goods liable to confiscation under s.113; the culpable acts were attributed to the tug's master and a supervisor who procured port clearance and effected supplies without filing manifests or shipping bills. The owner of the tug was absolved of liability and the confiscation and redemption fine under s.115(2) were held unsustainable. The Commissioner's order dated August 2015 was set aside and the appeals allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order and quashed penalties and confiscation measures. The Tribunal held penalties under s.114(iii) and s.114AA could not be sustained against certain partners and firms because there was no evidence of their knowledge, collusion or acts rendering goods liable to confiscation under s.113; the culpable acts were attributed to the tug's master and a supervisor who procured port clearance and effected supplies without filing manifests or shipping bills. The owner of the tug was absolved of liability and the confiscation and redemption fine under s.115(2) were held unsustainable. The Commissioner's order dated August 2015 was set aside and the appeals allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
