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" ?
Penalty imposed u/s 112(a) - Import confectionary items from Dubai - immunity from prosecution and fine/penalty - Tribunal held that since the appellant was a co-noticee along with the main accused, appellant was also entitled to immunity granted by the Settlement Commission to the main noticee - The High Court held that, the reasoning of the Tribunal extending immunity granted to the other co-noticees to the respondent is not sustainable. - Matter restored back before tribunal for re-judication in view of the earlier decision of the High Court.
Penalty imposed u/s 112(a) - Import confectionary items from Dubai - immunity from prosecution and fine/penalty - Tribunal held that since the appellant was a co-noticee along with the main accused, appellant was also entitled to immunity granted by the Settlement Commission to the main noticee - The High Court held that, the reasoning of the Tribunal extending immunity granted to the other co-noticees to the respondent is not sustainable. - Matter restored back before tribunal for re-judication in view of the earlier decision of the High Court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.