Commitment proceedings gain extended timelines, structured defect refiling, and automatic resumption of inquiry after the adjusted completion period e...
Centralised assessment transfer becomes unwarranted once the searched person's assessment is complete, requiring restoration to the appropriate charge...
Co-operative deduction eligibility excludes refund and commercial-bank interest, while qualifying co-operative investments require entity-wise verific...
Enhanced tax rate on surrendered unexplained income applies prospectively, while cash-deposit telescoping requires verification of available surrender...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT upheld the confiscation of 14200 kg of battery scrap of foreign origin which was smuggled through unauthorized routes from Nepal. The appellant was found to be the mastermind and penalized Rs.25,000/-, which was not considered excessive given that battery scrap falls under hazardous goods category. The appellant's claim of procuring the scrap locally could not be substantiated as used batteries cannot be freely traded per the Batteries (Management and Handling) Rules, 2001. The retraction of statements by co-noticees during adjudication was not given merit. The penalty on the appellant's accomplice, responsible for arranging invoices, was reduced to Rs.17,500/-. The appeal was partly allowed.
The CESTAT upheld the confiscation of 14200 kg of battery scrap of foreign origin which was smuggled through unauthorized routes from Nepal. The appellant was found to be the mastermind and penalized Rs.25,000/-, which was not considered excessive given that battery scrap falls under hazardous goods category. The appellant's claim of procuring the scrap locally could not be substantiated as used batteries cannot be freely traded per the Batteries (Management and Handling) Rules, 2001. The retraction of statements by co-noticees during adjudication was not given merit. The penalty on the appellant's accomplice, responsible for arranging invoices, was reduced to Rs.17,500/-. The appeal was partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
