Disciplinary proportionality requires penalties for Authorised Representative misconduct to match proven harm, leading to reconsideration of registrat...
Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
Page of 4920
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
81 to 100 of 98394 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 
TaxTMI 
of 4920 
