Consultancy fees claimed as business expense-can tax disallowance rest on survey suspicion despite invoices, contracts and bank trail? Appeal dismisse...
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 4814 
Join Channel 
