Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Page of 4782
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
561 to 580 of 95636 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT Bangalore heard a case involving a Customs Broker accused of smuggling Red Sander Logs. The issue of forfeiture of security deposit was raised, but the Tribunal found the notice issuance within 90 days, complying with Regulation (20) of CBLR 2013. The lack of opportunity for cross-examination was raised, but as the broker failed to appear for scheduled cross-examinations, this claim was dismissed. Violation of Section 11(n) of CBLR 2013 was established as the broker failed to verify antecedents and other details of the exporter. Despite this, the Tribunal noted no evidence of conspiracy in smuggling and deemed the penalty of Rs.25,000 for security deposit forfeiture sufficient. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the forfeiture decision.
CESTAT Bangalore heard a case involving a Customs Broker accused of smuggling Red Sander Logs. The issue of forfeiture of security deposit was raised, but the Tribunal found the notice issuance within 90 days, complying with Regulation (20) of CBLR 2013. The lack of opportunity for cross-examination was raised, but as the broker failed to appear for scheduled cross-examinations, this claim was dismissed. Violation of Section 11(n) of CBLR 2013 was established as the broker failed to verify antecedents and other details of the exporter. Despite this, the Tribunal noted no evidence of conspiracy in smuggling and deemed the penalty of Rs.25,000 for security deposit forfeiture sufficient. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the forfeiture decision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
