Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
CESTAT held that the customs broker (Appellant-CHA) could not be penalized under s.112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged abetment of illegal import of green and white peas. The Appellant-CHA had duly filed the Bill of Entry with all requisite documents, which were examined and accepted by Customs, and out-of-charge was granted. The subsequent interception of vehicles by SSB and detection of discrepancies during transit could not be attributed to the CHA, whose role is limited to filing documents and facilitating clearance under CBLR, 2018. No evidence of connivance or knowledge of concealment by the CHA was found. CESTAT set aside the penalty and allowed the appeal in full.
CESTAT held that the customs broker (Appellant-CHA) could not be penalized under s.112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged abetment of illegal import of green and white peas. The Appellant-CHA had duly filed the Bill of Entry with all requisite documents, which were examined and accepted by Customs, and out-of-charge was granted. The subsequent interception of vehicles by SSB and detection of discrepancies during transit could not be attributed to the CHA, whose role is limited to filing documents and facilitating clearance under CBLR, 2018. No evidence of connivance or knowledge of concealment by the CHA was found. CESTAT set aside the penalty and allowed the appeal in full.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
