Classification of imported salvaged shaft pieces as ship parts confirmed, reassessment time-barred and appeal allowed restoring original classificatio...
Scope of intermediary status for data hosting services: tribunal finds provider not intermediary, services exported and not taxable, limited remand on...
CENVAT credit availability after omission of Rule 12B in textiles confirmed; late addendum to SCN introducing new grounds held time-barred and invalid...
Export of Wheat Flour and related products subject to online allocation, eligibility criteria, non-transferable six-month authorisations and reporting...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7081 to 7100 of 96408 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4821 
Join Channel 
