Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
The key holdings were: 1) Since the goods (areca nuts) were absolutely confiscated, the demand for duty on the appellants is unsustainable. 2) Penalty u/s 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 is not attracted as there was no case of paper transactions without actual import of goods. 3) Penalty imposed on the individual partners of the appellant firm is set aside, relying on a Gujarat High Court decision that separate penalty cannot be imposed on partners once the firm has been penalized. Consequently, all appeals filed by the appellants were allowed.
The key holdings were: 1) Since the goods (areca nuts) were absolutely confiscated, the demand for duty on the appellants is unsustainable. 2) Penalty u/s 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 is not attracted as there was no case of paper transactions without actual import of goods. 3) Penalty imposed on the individual partners of the appellant firm is set aside, relying on a Gujarat High Court decision that separate penalty cannot be imposed on partners once the firm has been penalized. Consequently, all appeals filed by the appellants were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
