Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Mis-declared/un-declared imported goods - Evidently, no panchnama was drawn by Revenue for retrieval of data or documents from the CPU/mobile of the appellant - The seizure is bad under the provisions of Section 110 of the Act. It is found that the show cause notice is vague as it does not specify the particular clause of Section 111, under which the goods are liable for confiscation. Further, in the facts and circumstances, the imposition of penalty under Section 112 and 114 AA is bad. - AT
Mis-declared/un-declared imported goods - Evidently, no panchnama was drawn by Revenue for retrieval of data or documents from the CPU/mobile of the appellant - The seizure is bad under the provisions of Section 110 of the Act. It is found that the show cause notice is vague as it does not specify the particular clause of Section 111, under which the goods are liable for confiscation. Further, in the facts and circumstances, the imposition of penalty under Section 112 and 114 AA is bad. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.