Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The appellant, Container Corporation of India, was granted custodianship as a Customs Cargo Service Provider (CCSP) under the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations (HCCAR), 2009. The approval of CCSP is subject to conditions under Regulation 5, and responsibilities are outlined in Regulation 6. During the renewal process, discrepancies were found regarding non-compliance with Regulations 5(1)(i)(c)(f)(g)(n) and clause (iii), leading to penalties under Regulation 12(8) of HCCAR, 2009. Additionally, the custodian operated from an area not notified u/s 8 of the Customs Act, 1962, violating Sections 45, 7, and 8, resulting in a penalty u/s 117. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the penalties but reduced the amounts to Rs. 10,000/- under Regulation 12(8) of HCCAR, 2009, and Rs. 25,000/- u/s 117 of the Customs Act, 1962.
The appellant, Container Corporation of India, was granted custodianship as a Customs Cargo Service Provider (CCSP) under the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations (HCCAR), 2009. The approval of CCSP is subject to conditions under Regulation 5, and responsibilities are outlined in Regulation 6. During the renewal process, discrepancies were found regarding non-compliance with Regulations 5(1)(i)(c)(f)(g)(n) and clause (iii), leading to penalties under Regulation 12(8) of HCCAR, 2009. Additionally, the custodian operated from an area not notified u/s 8 of the Customs Act, 1962, violating Sections 45, 7, and 8, resulting in a penalty u/s 117. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the penalties but reduced the amounts to Rs. 10,000/- under Regulation 12(8) of HCCAR, 2009, and Rs. 25,000/- u/s 117 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
