Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
The CESTAT allowed the appeals, setting aside penalties under s.112(b) and s.117 of the Customs Act, 1962, and quashing confiscation of seized gold and Indian currency. The Tribunal held the appellants discharged the burden under s.123 by production of invoices when the Revenue failed to respond, and adjudication under s.125 was defective for not offering the statutory option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation; accordingly the goods and currency were not liable to confiscation and s.112(b) penalties could not stand. Further, s.117 penalties were improper where appellants were implicated solely by third-party statements, were denied CDR analysis and opportunity to cross-examine, and no incriminating recovery was made. Appeals allowed; penalties and confiscation set aside.
The CESTAT allowed the appeals, setting aside penalties under s.112(b) and s.117 of the Customs Act, 1962, and quashing confiscation of seized gold and Indian currency. The Tribunal held the appellants discharged the burden under s.123 by production of invoices when the Revenue failed to respond, and adjudication under s.125 was defective for not offering the statutory option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation; accordingly the goods and currency were not liable to confiscation and s.112(b) penalties could not stand. Further, s.117 penalties were improper where appellants were implicated solely by third-party statements, were denied CDR analysis and opportunity to cross-examine, and no incriminating recovery was made. Appeals allowed; penalties and confiscation set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
