Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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 4828 
Join Channel 
