Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Penal liability under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA requires direct and concrete proof of knowing involvement in the fraudulent export activity; suspicion, assumption, or merely suggestive material is insufficient. The Tribunal found no evidence linking the appellant, who was not the Customs Broker for the exports, to the consignments or to any inflated valuation, and held that provision of contact details or documents to another person did not by itself establish a premeditated role in wrongful IGST refund facilitation. The penalties were set aside.
Penal liability under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA requires direct and concrete proof of knowing involvement in the fraudulent export activity; suspicion, assumption, or merely suggestive material is insufficient. The Tribunal found no evidence linking the appellant, who was not the Customs Broker for the exports, to the consignments or to any inflated valuation, and held that provision of contact details or documents to another person did not by itself establish a premeditated role in wrongful IGST refund facilitation. The penalties were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
