Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Scientific research association approval requires continuing SIRO status, annual donation reporting, and donor certificates for the approved foundatio...
Scientific research institution approval is conditional on SIRO recognition, annual donation reporting, donor certification, and prescribed compliance...
Page of 4878
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 97553 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT NEW DELHI ruled on the revocation of a Customs Broker License and forfeiture of security deposit. The case involved risky exporters engaged in frauds, with exporters not physically present at registered premises. The appellant, as the Customs Broker, was found not in violation of Regulation 10(d) as it had no authority over GST registration issues. The appellant's responsibility under Regulation 10(n) was to verify documents, not physically verify exporter existence. The appellant satisfied obligations by verifying IEC and GSTIN online. The order revoking the license was set aside as the Customs Broker did not violate regulations. Appeal allowed.
CESTAT NEW DELHI ruled on the revocation of a Customs Broker License and forfeiture of security deposit. The case involved risky exporters engaged in frauds, with exporters not physically present at registered premises. The appellant, as the Customs Broker, was found not in violation of Regulation 10(d) as it had no authority over GST registration issues. The appellant's responsibility under Regulation 10(n) was to verify documents, not physically verify exporter existence. The appellant satisfied obligations by verifying IEC and GSTIN online. The order revoking the license was set aside as the Customs Broker did not violate regulations. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4878 
