Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
Reliance on inquiry statements without compliance with the cross-examination safeguard under Section 138B, coupled with weak corroboration, was held insufficient to sustain penalty for alleged smuggling facilitation. The Tribunal found that the statements used against the appellants were untested, the Angadiya letters were not proved as reliable records, and the Department failed to connect the alleged acts with passport data, duty rosters, call records, or proper identification. On the standard of preponderance of probability, conscious involvement or facilitation of goods liable to confiscation was not established, so the penalties under Section 112(b) against both appellants were set aside.
Reliance on inquiry statements without compliance with the cross-examination safeguard under Section 138B, coupled with weak corroboration, was held insufficient to sustain penalty for alleged smuggling facilitation. The Tribunal found that the statements used against the appellants were untested, the Angadiya letters were not proved as reliable records, and the Department failed to connect the alleged acts with passport data, duty rosters, call records, or proper identification. On the standard of preponderance of probability, conscious involvement or facilitation of goods liable to confiscation was not established, so the penalties under Section 112(b) against both appellants were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
