Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
Insurer's investment gains and investment write-downs face Section 263 revision; enquiry upheld, Rule 5(b)(ii) lapse sustained, late corrigendum quash...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7241 to 7260 of 96333 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
