Fraudulently obtained SEIS scrips cannot support customs exemption; recovery, confiscation and penalties were sustained, but employee penalty fell awa...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5001 to 5020 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT upheld penalty liability where the appellant admitted procuring third-party shipping bills for consideration and using them to falsely show fulfilment of EPCG export obligations. The Tribunal treated the cancelled licences and EODCs as confirming the fraudulent arrangement, and held that these acts rendered the goods liable to confiscation under section 111, attracting penalty under section 112(a). It also held that knowing use of false shipping bills and related documents in customs proceedings squarely attracted section 114AA. On proportionality, however, it considered the surrounding circumstances and reduced each penalty to Rs. 50,000, finding that amount sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
CESTAT upheld penalty liability where the appellant admitted procuring third-party shipping bills for consideration and using them to falsely show fulfilment of EPCG export obligations. The Tribunal treated the cancelled licences and EODCs as confirming the fraudulent arrangement, and held that these acts rendered the goods liable to confiscation under section 111, attracting penalty under section 112(a). It also held that knowing use of false shipping bills and related documents in customs proceedings squarely attracted section 114AA. On proportionality, however, it considered the surrounding circumstances and reduced each penalty to Rs. 50,000, finding that amount sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
