Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Confiscation of goods - insulated copper cables - failure to produce the shipping bill before the ‘proper officer’ - goods had indeed been loaded on board without ‘let export order (LEO)’ - The regularisation of the process for export is on record. Moreover, the vessel had been allowed to depart in accordance with section 42 of Customs Act, 1962 after issue of ‘port clearance’ by the ‘proper officer’ though it was well within the authority of such officer to offload the offending goods. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant was in any way connected with illicit shipment of export cargo. Consequently, the imposition of penalty under section 114 of Customs Act, 1962 is unjustified - AT
Confiscation of goods - insulated copper cables - failure to produce the shipping bill before the ‘proper officer’ - goods had indeed been loaded on board without ‘let export order (LEO)’ - The regularisation of the process for export is on record. Moreover, the vessel had been allowed to depart in accordance with section 42 of Customs Act, 1962 after issue of ‘port clearance’ by the ‘proper officer’ though it was well within the authority of such officer to offload the offending goods. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant was in any way connected with illicit shipment of export cargo. Consequently, the imposition of penalty under section 114 of Customs Act, 1962 is unjustified - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.