Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3001 to 3020 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty under section 112(b) requires proof that a person acquired possession of or dealt with goods liable to confiscation, together with knowledge or belief that the goods were so liable. The Tribunal held that this standard was not met where the appellants consistently maintained they had only supplied fabricated material and scrap to an SEZ unit, had no purchase transactions with it, and were manufacturers rather than traders. It also held that statements recorded under section 108 could not be relied on because the procedure under section 138B had not been followed. The penalties were therefore set aside.
Penalty under section 112(b) requires proof that a person acquired possession of or dealt with goods liable to confiscation, together with knowledge or belief that the goods were so liable. The Tribunal held that this standard was not met where the appellants consistently maintained they had only supplied fabricated material and scrap to an SEZ unit, had no purchase transactions with it, and were manufacturers rather than traders. It also held that statements recorded under section 108 could not be relied on because the procedure under section 138B had not been followed. The penalties were therefore set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
