Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
CESTAT examined penalties imposed on the appellants, acting as high sea sellers and job workers, under s.112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for allegedly colluding with the importer to evade duty and wrongfully claim exemption on imported LCC paper rolls. The Tribunal held that penalty under s.112(b) requires clear proof of mens rea, i.e., that the person "knew or had reason to believe" the goods were liable to confiscation under s.111. The Dept. failed to adduce any evidence that the appellants had knowledge of, or participated in, the importer's fraud. Job-work documents were not found defective. CESTAT therefore set aside the penalties and allowed the appeals.
CESTAT examined penalties imposed on the appellants, acting as high sea sellers and job workers, under s.112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for allegedly colluding with the importer to evade duty and wrongfully claim exemption on imported LCC paper rolls. The Tribunal held that penalty under s.112(b) requires clear proof of mens rea, i.e., that the person "knew or had reason to believe" the goods were liable to confiscation under s.111. The Dept. failed to adduce any evidence that the appellants had knowledge of, or participated in, the importer's fraud. Job-work documents were not found defective. CESTAT therefore set aside the penalties and allowed the appeals.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
