Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Confiscation of smuggled gold bars/biscuits u/ss 111(b), 111(d), and 111(f) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants failed to establish the licit procurement of the foreign-marked gold with 99.90% purity, a notified item u/s 123, thereby not discharging their burden of proving ownership. While the gold cannot be released due to unestablished ownership, the Tribunal reduced the penalties imposed on the appellants considering the roles played and the nature of the offense, deeming the initial penalties excessive compared to the gold's value. The penalty reductions were: Appellant 1 from Rs. 6,25,000 to Rs. 3,50,000, Appellant 2 from Rs. 6,50,000 to Rs. 4,00,000, and Appellant 3 from Rs. 5,80,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 u/s 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Confiscation of smuggled gold bars/biscuits u/ss 111(b), 111(d), and 111(f) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants failed to establish the licit procurement of the foreign-marked gold with 99.90% purity, a notified item u/s 123, thereby not discharging their burden of proving ownership. While the gold cannot be released due to unestablished ownership, the Tribunal reduced the penalties imposed on the appellants considering the roles played and the nature of the offense, deeming the initial penalties excessive compared to the gold's value. The penalty reductions were: Appellant 1 from Rs. 6,25,000 to Rs. 3,50,000, Appellant 2 from Rs. 6,50,000 to Rs. 4,00,000, and Appellant 3 from Rs. 5,80,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 u/s 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
