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 allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned order insofar as it ordered absolute confiscation of the seized firecrackers and imposed penalties on the appellants. The Bench held that the seizure was a town seizure within India, the goods were not notified under S.123 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the burden of proving foreign, smuggled origin squarely rested on Revenue. Revenue failed to adduce cogent evidence of Chinese origin, conducted no effective follow-up investigation, and did not make the godown owner a noticee. Denial of cross-examination under S.108 further violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the proceedings were held unsustainable and all penalties on the anonymized appellants were vacated.
CESTAT allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned order insofar as it ordered absolute confiscation of the seized firecrackers and imposed penalties on the appellants. The Bench held that the seizure was a town seizure within India, the goods were not notified under S.123 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the burden of proving foreign, smuggled origin squarely rested on Revenue. Revenue failed to adduce cogent evidence of Chinese origin, conducted no effective follow-up investigation, and did not make the godown owner a noticee. Denial of cross-examination under S.108 further violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the proceedings were held unsustainable and all penalties on the anonymized appellants were vacated.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
