Consultancy fees claimed as business expense-can tax disallowance rest on survey suspicion despite invoices, contracts and bank trail? Appeal dismisse...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order denying exemption under AIFTA and imposing redemption fine under s.125 of the Customs Act, 1962. It held that the adjudicating authority, in de novo proceedings, exceeded its jurisdiction by fastening redemption fine when the original proceedings had not ordered redemption on payment of fine, reiterating that an appellant cannot be placed in a worse position for exercising appellate rights. The Tribunal found no allegation or finding that the goods did not originate in Thailand, nor any challenge to the authenticity or validity of the certificates of origin, rendering denial of exemption and consequent recovery under s.28 unsustainable.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order denying exemption under AIFTA and imposing redemption fine under s.125 of the Customs Act, 1962. It held that the adjudicating authority, in de novo proceedings, exceeded its jurisdiction by fastening redemption fine when the original proceedings had not ordered redemption on payment of fine, reiterating that an appellant cannot be placed in a worse position for exercising appellate rights. The Tribunal found no allegation or finding that the goods did not originate in Thailand, nor any challenge to the authenticity or validity of the certificates of origin, rendering denial of exemption and consequent recovery under s.28 unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
