Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
The court held that the appropriate government, while considering whether to make a reference u/s 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is not entitled to adjudicate the dispute on merits. Its function is administrative, not judicial or quasi-judicial. It cannot delve into the merits and determine the dispute itself. The authority erred by refusing reference on the technical ground that the petitioner worked only 85 days without substantiating further employment claim. The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the appropriate government for making a reference of the dispute.
The court held that the appropriate government, while considering whether to make a reference u/s 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is not entitled to adjudicate the dispute on merits. Its function is administrative, not judicial or quasi-judicial. It cannot delve into the merits and determine the dispute itself. The authority erred by refusing reference on the technical ground that the petitioner worked only 85 days without substantiating further employment claim. The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the appropriate government for making a reference of the dispute.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.