Drawings/designs supply and erection supervision fees from German contractor: designs non-taxable; supervision taxed as FTS/PE depending on six-month ...
Imported analyser diagnostic cartridges treated as accessories with analyser system, not standalone diagnostic reagents; extended limitation and penal...
Steel-timber construction shuttering/formwork tariff classification dispute: essential character held steel, classified as shuttering under Heading 73...
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 4828 
Join Channel 
