Tax determination against deceased proprietor invalid where no notice to legal representative; appeal rejected without addressing jurisdictional defec...
Revocation of GST registration and permission to file blocked returns; conditional defreezing of bank accounts after security and instalment applicati...
Right to access seized electronic evidence: impugned adjudication treated as additional show cause notice, remand for fresh hearing and return of mate...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6681 to 6700 of 96508 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Invocation of s.28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the consequent mandatory penalty under s.114A, despite post-clearance payment of duty with interest, was held unsustainable because the extended provision requires specific proof of collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression. Mere payment a few days after "out of charge," particularly when system changes were pending for capturing the new duty in ICES and no advantage accrued to the importer due to interest liability, did not establish the requisite intent or conduct. Accordingly, confiscation and penalties were set aside and the appeals were allowed. - CESTAT
Invocation of s.28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the consequent mandatory penalty under s.114A, despite post-clearance payment of duty with interest, was held unsustainable because the extended provision requires specific proof of collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression. Mere payment a few days after "out of charge," particularly when system changes were pending for capturing the new duty in ICES and no advantage accrued to the importer due to interest liability, did not establish the requisite intent or conduct. Accordingly, confiscation and penalties were set aside and the appeals were allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.