Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4807 
Join Channel 
