Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Page of 4782
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 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 
