Search and seizure: abatement of earlier search bars use of prior seized material in later search-based assessments; relief limited to new documents f...
Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
Export Obligation Discharge Certificates for EPCG compliance cannot be questioned by Customs unless DGFT adjudicates and cancels them, so demands quas...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
