Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
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 4824 
Join Channel 
