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 ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
981 to 1000 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" ?
Confiscation of goods and levy of penalty - Import of Pair of Shoes - mis-declaration/suppression in the import documents - Non-compliance of the provisions of the IPR Rules, 2007 - The CESTAT found the goods to be counterfeit, bearing the logo "UCB" without the right holder's consent, categorizing them as "prohibited goods" under the Customs Act. The appellant's challenge based on the procedure under Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007, was dismissed, upholding the confiscation under Section 111(d) and the penalty under Section 112(a)(i).
Confiscation of goods and levy of penalty - Import of Pair of Shoes - mis-declaration/suppression in the import documents - Non-compliance of the provisions of the IPR Rules, 2007 - The CESTAT found the goods to be counterfeit, bearing the logo "UCB" without the right holder's consent, categorizing them as "prohibited goods" under the Customs Act. The appellant's challenge based on the procedure under Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007, was dismissed, upholding the confiscation under Section 111(d) and the penalty under Section 112(a)(i).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.