100% EOU - Clandestine removal - illicit clearance of imported ...

Court Rules Shortages Alone Insufficient for Penalties in EOU Yarn Case; No Substantial Evidence of Clandestine Activities Found.

April 18, 2022

Case Laws Customs AT

100% EOU - Clandestine removal - illicit clearance of imported yarn and indigenous Yarn - detection of shortages at the time of the visit of the officers - The Appellant has placed reliance upon various judgments to canvas their point that in absence of corroborative evidence no demand can be made - it is also found that apart from the alleged shortages, there is virtually no other evidence on record to reflect upon the clandestine activities of the appellant. As per the settled law such shortages, by themselves, cannot lead to the fact of clandestine removals so as to justify confirmation of demands. - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

100% EOU - Clandestine removal - illicit clearance of imported ...

Court Rules Shortages Alone Insufficient for Penalties in EOU Yarn Case; No Substantial Evidence of Clandestine Activities Found.

April 18, 2022

Case Laws Customs AT

You may also like:

Levy of penalty - Applicability of the substituted rule for imposition of penalty - The Supreme Court sided with the appellant, holding that the substituted rule from...

Jurisdiction of civil court u/s 34 of SARFAESI Act was in question. Suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction was rejected by lower courts under Order...

Levy of penalty - taking CENVAT Credit irregularly - it is the contention of the Assessee that there is some element of discretion available in the adjudicating officer...

Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Contravention of Rule 8(3A) - penalty under Rule 25 is not permissible, but penalty under Rule 27 is to be imposed - AT

The Calcutta High Court considered a case involving the clandestine removal of wire rods and the levy of a penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The...

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the assessing officer against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, holding that no substantial question of law...

The adjudicating authority is bound to explain the alleged contraventions to the person proceeded against or their legal representatives. Rule 4(4) mandates...

Validity of the decision High Court deciding the appeal on admission state itself on merit - The Supreme Court observed that while the High Court had framed certain...

The High Court held that for levying penalty u/s 271D for violation of Section 269SS, the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction that the provisions were violated....

The High Court considered the legality of a penalty imposed u/s 31(3) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, due to the want of Form 28B. The issue was whether the defendants...

HC upheld validity of Rule 36(4) of CGST Rules, dismissing constitutional challenge. Court determined Rule 36(4) derives authority from Section 16 of CGST Act and...

The High Court held that respondent No. 3 cannot avoid deciding the petitioners' application dated 20 December 2023 seeking an advance ruling on the taxability of sale...

HC partially allowed the petition challenging GST late fee and penalty impositions. Court upheld late fee under Section 47(2) of GST Act for delayed annual return...

The CESTAT ruled that Ziking (slag), a by-product emerging during Silico Manganese manufacture, is not subject to excise duty. Following precedents in Monnet Ispat and...

This case deals with the levy of deficit stamp duty and penalty in a court-conducted auction sale. The key points are: In a court-supervised auction sale, the stamp...

Quick Updates: