Charitable registration renewal cannot become an assessment of receipts, profitability or annual exemption compliance, requiring renewal and donation ...
AMP expenditure for own business is not an international transaction without an associated-enterprise arrangement, eliminating transfer pricing adjust...
Customs valuation must use comparable contemporary imports, while confiscation fines and penalties require proportionate recalculation on reassessed v...
Depositor-protection proceedings prevail over corporate insolvency, while liquidators may recover chit receivables using copies of seized company reco...
Intermediary service classification fails where overseas admission facilitation is supplied independently, preserving export treatment and small-provi...
Satellite transponder bandwidth is telecommunication, not Business Support Service; foreign non-telegraph providers triggered no service tax liability...
CESTAT set aside penalties on the freight forwarder and its authorised representative after finding that the case rested on presumption rather than evidentiary linkage. It held that, on the reading of Circular No. 41/2017-Cus, mere movement of export goods to the ICD without RFID e-seal, where self-sealing permission was absent, did not by itself establish an offence when de-stuffing and 100% examination had been carried out. The order also failed to show what undue export benefit was sought or how the appellants were connected to the alleged dummy or fake documents. With penalties on the alleged document-generating co-noticees already set aside, no basis survived for penalties under sections 114 and 114AA.
CESTAT set aside penalties on the freight forwarder and its authorised representative after finding that the case rested on presumption rather than evidentiary linkage. It held that, on the reading of Circular No. 41/2017-Cus, mere movement of export goods to the ICD without RFID e-seal, where self-sealing permission was absent, did not by itself establish an offence when de-stuffing and 100% examination had been carried out. The order also failed to show what undue export benefit was sought or how the appellants were connected to the alleged dummy or fake documents. With penalties on the alleged document-generating co-noticees already set aside, no basis survived for penalties under sections 114 and 114AA.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
