Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural...
Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
Penalty under section 112(b)(ii) could not be sustained where the only basis was a higher amount charged in earlier clearances, because that circumstance created at most a presumption and did not prove knowledge or conscious participation in improper importation. The Tribunal noted that the Embassy documents were genuine and that the appellant's role was limited to forwarding email and documents to the customs broker who handled clearance. In the absence of material showing involvement in duty evasion or importation of goods liable to confiscation, the penalty was without authority of law and was set aside.
Penalty under section 112(b)(ii) could not be sustained where the only basis was a higher amount charged in earlier clearances, because that circumstance created at most a presumption and did not prove knowledge or conscious participation in improper importation. The Tribunal noted that the Embassy documents were genuine and that the appellant's role was limited to forwarding email and documents to the customs broker who handled clearance. In the absence of material showing involvement in duty evasion or importation of goods liable to confiscation, the penalty was without authority of law and was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
