PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Pr. Commissioner of Customs, CSMI Airport, Mumbai, holding that penalty under section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be sustained against the appellants. The Tribunal found no cogent evidence of overt acts constituting aiding and abetting improper exportation beyond the port of export; allegations rested on third-party statements taken without opportunity for cross-examination and investigative material that did not implicate most appellants. One appellant's involvement was limited to facilitating a bank account. In the absence of proof linking the appellants to fraudulent outward movement or to activation of payment schemes, imposition of penalty was unlawful and the appeal was allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Pr. Commissioner of Customs, CSMI Airport, Mumbai, holding that penalty under section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be sustained against the appellants. The Tribunal found no cogent evidence of overt acts constituting aiding and abetting improper exportation beyond the port of export; allegations rested on third-party statements taken without opportunity for cross-examination and investigative material that did not implicate most appellants. One appellant's involvement was limited to facilitating a bank account. In the absence of proof linking the appellants to fraudulent outward movement or to activation of payment schemes, imposition of penalty was unlawful and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.