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...
The appellant imported pneumatic tyres without the mandatory Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) markings, violating the provisions of the BIS Act and the Pneumatic Tyres and Tubes of Automatic Vehicles (Quality Control) Order, 2009. The imported tyres were held to be "prohibited goods" u/s 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962, liable for confiscation u/s 111. The appellant also mis-declared the quantity, quality, and valuation of the imported goods. The Tribunal upheld the absolute confiscation of the goods, imposition of penalties u/ss 112(a)(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, and rejected the appellant's plea for redemption of the goods, citing public safety concerns and the risk of the goods falling into unauthorized hands.
The appellant imported pneumatic tyres without the mandatory Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) markings, violating the provisions of the BIS Act and the Pneumatic Tyres and Tubes of Automatic Vehicles (Quality Control) Order, 2009. The imported tyres were held to be "prohibited goods" u/s 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962, liable for confiscation u/s 111. The appellant also mis-declared the quantity, quality, and valuation of the imported goods. The Tribunal upheld the absolute confiscation of the goods, imposition of penalties u/ss 112(a)(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, and rejected the appellant's plea for redemption of the goods, citing public safety concerns and the risk of the goods falling into unauthorized hands.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
