Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT ruled in favor of three fireworks firms, setting aside the order that clubbed their clearances under SSI exemption notification No.8/2003-CE. The Tribunal found fundamental flaws in the Department's approach, noting they failed to identify a principal entity as required by law before aggregating clearances, instead creating a fictional "group" with no legal basis. Additionally, the adjudicating authority improperly denied cross-examination of the investigating officer and relied on inadmissible statements. The evidence for alleged clandestine removals was deemed "woefully inadequate," with the Department's quantification methodology being arbitrary, particularly for periods where no evidence existed. The appeals were allowed, with each firm maintaining separate eligibility for SSI exemption.
CESTAT ruled in favor of three fireworks firms, setting aside the order that clubbed their clearances under SSI exemption notification No.8/2003-CE. The Tribunal found fundamental flaws in the Department's approach, noting they failed to identify a principal entity as required by law before aggregating clearances, instead creating a fictional "group" with no legal basis. Additionally, the adjudicating authority improperly denied cross-examination of the investigating officer and relied on inadmissible statements. The evidence for alleged clandestine removals was deemed "woefully inadequate," with the Department's quantification methodology being arbitrary, particularly for periods where no evidence existed. The appeals were allowed, with each firm maintaining separate eligibility for SSI exemption.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.