Maintainability of a Section 7 insolvency petition against a financial service provider denied; appeal dismissed for non maintainability and complex d...
Provisional attachment under Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires exhaustion of statutory remedies; impugned order set aside, appeal to tribuna...
Restoration of property under Prevention of Money Laundering Act after attachment dispute rendered academic; possession directed to successful resolut...
Goods Transport Agency services via e commerce portals: consignment note creates custody and liability and enables exemption for unregistered recipien...
Penalty on a customs broker under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act for alleged abetment of smuggling was held unsustainable because reliance on the broker's statement and other statements was impermissible without establishing admissibility under Section 138B, and the requested cross-examination was not granted. Even assuming admissibility, the statements did not prove knowledge or complicity in concealment of smuggled cigarettes, and the Department led no evidence of any intentional act amounting to abetment. Any failure to verify importer antecedents under CBLR, at most, indicated negligence and could not establish involvement in smuggling. The appellate authority's reliance on ingredients of Section 112(b) without such allegation in the show cause notice was also impermissible, so the penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed. - CESTAT
Penalty on a customs broker under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act for alleged abetment of smuggling was held unsustainable because reliance on the broker's statement and other statements was impermissible without establishing admissibility under Section 138B, and the requested cross-examination was not granted. Even assuming admissibility, the statements did not prove knowledge or complicity in concealment of smuggled cigarettes, and the Department led no evidence of any intentional act amounting to abetment. Any failure to verify importer antecedents under CBLR, at most, indicated negligence and could not establish involvement in smuggling. The appellate authority's reliance on ingredients of Section 112(b) without such allegation in the show cause notice was also impermissible, so the penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
