Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
A customs broker penalty dispute turned on whether a medicine exported as MIGRAN, containing Ergotamine, fell within Schedule-B and required a Narcotic Commissioner NOC. The Tribunal held that Schedule-B covered only Ergotamine and its salts, not preparations containing it, so the NOC-based penalty could not stand. It also found that knowledge of undeclared additional medicine could not fairly be attributed to the broker on the facts, given the exporter's stated ignorance and the technical uncertainty surrounding the product. In any event, it held that the residuary penalty under Section 117 was unavailable where the CBLR contained a specific penalty provision, and it set aside the penalty order.
A customs broker penalty dispute turned on whether a medicine exported as MIGRAN, containing Ergotamine, fell within Schedule-B and required a Narcotic Commissioner NOC. The Tribunal held that Schedule-B covered only Ergotamine and its salts, not preparations containing it, so the NOC-based penalty could not stand. It also found that knowledge of undeclared additional medicine could not fairly be attributed to the broker on the facts, given the exporter's stated ignorance and the technical uncertainty surrounding the product. In any event, it held that the residuary penalty under Section 117 was unavailable where the CBLR contained a specific penalty provision, and it set aside the penalty order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.