Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court addressed a challenge to an adjudication order u/s 78 of Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017. The Court emphasized that while Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1994 limits adjournments to three dates, it does not deny the right to a hearing. The Act aims to expedite adjudication proceedings. The Court noted that fixing three successive dates within a week may suggest bias. The adjudicating authority must pass specific orders for each adjournment sought. The petitioner's right to a fair hearing was deemed impaired, so the Court disposed of the petition without requiring alternative remedies, as the petitioner's right to hearing was affected.
The High Court addressed a challenge to an adjudication order u/s 78 of Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017. The Court emphasized that while Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1994 limits adjournments to three dates, it does not deny the right to a hearing. The Act aims to expedite adjudication proceedings. The Court noted that fixing three successive dates within a week may suggest bias. The adjudicating authority must pass specific orders for each adjournment sought. The petitioner's right to a fair hearing was deemed impaired, so the Court disposed of the petition without requiring alternative remedies, as the petitioner's right to hearing was affected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
