Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9201 to 9220 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal for lack of merit, upholding confiscation of imported gold, manufactured jewellery and packing materials where diversion from the SEZ scheme was found. The Tribunal held that penalty under s.114A CA is not cumulative (duty and interest) but is limited by the statutory disjunctive wording to duty or interest. The impugned order was found defective for failing to adjudicate liability of Respondent-II under ss.112A/114 CA; no findings were recorded nor were penalties imposed or dropped. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to adjudicate the charges against Respondent-II afresh under the SCN dated 27.09.2019 before any maintainable appeal.
CESTAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal for lack of merit, upholding confiscation of imported gold, manufactured jewellery and packing materials where diversion from the SEZ scheme was found. The Tribunal held that penalty under s.114A CA is not cumulative (duty and interest) but is limited by the statutory disjunctive wording to duty or interest. The impugned order was found defective for failing to adjudicate liability of Respondent-II under ss.112A/114 CA; no findings were recorded nor were penalties imposed or dropped. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to adjudicate the charges against Respondent-II afresh under the SCN dated 27.09.2019 before any maintainable appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
