Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
Statements recorded during inquiry under the Customs Act are admissible for proving their truth only if the deponent is examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority and the authority forms an opinion to admit them, followed by opportunity for cross examination; this mandatory procedure in analogous provisions for customs and central excise neutralises coercion risk. The impugned penalty rested solely on inquiry statements recorded without following that procedure, so such statements could not sustain a penalty for abetment under the customs penalty provision. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the appellants was quashed and the appeals allowed.
Statements recorded during inquiry under the Customs Act are admissible for proving their truth only if the deponent is examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority and the authority forms an opinion to admit them, followed by opportunity for cross examination; this mandatory procedure in analogous provisions for customs and central excise neutralises coercion risk. The impugned penalty rested solely on inquiry statements recorded without following that procedure, so such statements could not sustain a penalty for abetment under the customs penalty provision. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the appellants was quashed and the appeals allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
