Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Public servant status under anti-corruption law extends to recognised stock exchange leadership; constitutional and sanction challenges do not succeed...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
881 to 900 of 95714 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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
