Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 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 held that the CB did not violate Regulations 10(d), 10(e), and 10(f) of CBLR, 2018. Drawing analogy from a previous case, the Tribunal stated that the CB cannot be held liable for the exporter's actions unless there is clear evidence of the broker's involvement in the alleged misconduct. The Delhi HC had also ruled that a CB is not an expert in identifying misdeclaration of goods. Consequently, the revocation of the CB's license, forfeiture of security deposit, and imposition of penalty were set aside, allowing the appeal.
The CESTAT held that the CB did not violate Regulations 10(d), 10(e), and 10(f) of CBLR, 2018. Drawing analogy from a previous case, the Tribunal stated that the CB cannot be held liable for the exporter's actions unless there is clear evidence of the broker's involvement in the alleged misconduct. The Delhi HC had also ruled that a CB is not an expert in identifying misdeclaration of goods. Consequently, the revocation of the CB's license, forfeiture of security deposit, and imposition of penalty were set aside, allowing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
