Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Assessee's project-completion revenue recognition upheld; income addition deleted under Guidance Note/AS-9 and percentage-completion rules as complian...
CESTAT dismissed the appeal, upholding confiscation and imposition of penalty under section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found undisputed mis-declaration of export goods, rendering them liable to confiscation under section 124, and held the Additional Director, DRI, competent to issue the show-cause notice in these proceedings; the Supreme Court authority relied upon by the appellant concerned issuance of notices under section 28 for duty demand and was in any event subsequently reviewed. The appellant's contention of mere ministerial filing of shipping bills was rejected because the bills were benami and filed at the behest of a third party, attracting primary culpability. A separate penalty under CBLR does not preclude imposition under section 114(iii).
CESTAT dismissed the appeal, upholding confiscation and imposition of penalty under section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found undisputed mis-declaration of export goods, rendering them liable to confiscation under section 124, and held the Additional Director, DRI, competent to issue the show-cause notice in these proceedings; the Supreme Court authority relied upon by the appellant concerned issuance of notices under section 28 for duty demand and was in any event subsequently reviewed. The appellant's contention of mere ministerial filing of shipping bills was rejected because the bills were benami and filed at the behest of a third party, attracting primary culpability. A separate penalty under CBLR does not preclude imposition under section 114(iii).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
