For physical loss, no mens rea is required - Appellant failed to ...

Customs

June 24, 2015

For physical loss, no mens rea is required - Appellant failed to deliver the sealed container from their CFs safely to the gateway port. Therefore, the adjudicating authority had rightly imposed penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

For physical loss, no mens rea is required - Appellant failed to ...

Customs

June 24, 2015

You may also like:

Penalty u/s 53 - Karnataka VAT - Once statutory contravention is established, then section 53(12) is attracted which provides for levy of penalty - presence of Mens Rea...

If there is no mens rea, no mandatory penalty u/s 11AC - SC

Levy of penalty - mens rea in evasion of tax - It is well settled that by merely using the expression “mens rea”, it would not amount to concluding that there was a...

Imposition of penalty on container freight station (CFS) u/s 112A of Customs Act - clandestine removal by way of generating & producing bogus Custom documents -...

CENVAT Credit availed wrongly on Capital goods - there is no sufficient evidence to prove Mens rea or guilt on the part of the assessee - no penalty - HC

Extended period of limitation - wrong classification cannot lead to the conclusion of suppression of facts etc. when no mens rea established. - AT

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - Default by assessee - mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for non compliance of notices issued by AO - penalty confirmed - AT

Penalty u/s 116 – There was no requirement of proving mens rea on the part of person-in-charge of conveyance - CGOVT

Extended period of limitation - mens rea - absence of any deceitful practice - duty demand sustained by the Tribunal isnot correct - HC

Levy of penalty on Director u/r 26 of CER - involvement of the director of the appellants in clandestine activities or not - here are not much reasoning has been...

Quick Updates: