Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
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 ...
Allegation for conducting market inquiry improperly by the Inspector (Cutoms) (now deceased) - No question arises of abeting him at a stage later than the commission of said fraudulent exports. There is no evidence produced by the department which may prove that the appellant ever instigated or conspired or intentionally aided the exporter to fraudulently export the hand woven carpets to traders in different countries and to take as high as 12 Crores of drawback in DAPL and higher drawback in other companies as well. There is no evidence that appellant has been the beneficiary of these amounts or part thereof. - AT
Allegation for conducting market inquiry improperly by the Inspector (Cutoms) (now deceased) - No question arises of abeting him at a stage later than the commission of said fraudulent exports. There is no evidence produced by the department which may prove that the appellant ever instigated or conspired or intentionally aided the exporter to fraudulently export the hand woven carpets to traders in different countries and to take as high as 12 Crores of drawback in DAPL and higher drawback in other companies as well. There is no evidence that appellant has been the beneficiary of these amounts or part thereof. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.