Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Condonation of delay permits statutory appeal restoration where inadequate service explanation prevented consideration of reassessment and taxable-inc...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
121 to 140 of 95955 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT adjudicated a customs export scheme dispute involving penalty provisions under sections 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal ruled that statements recorded under section 108 cannot be considered admissible evidence under section 138B without proper cross-examination procedures. The tribunal found the penalty imposition against the parties was unsupported by substantive evidence, specifically rejecting statements recorded without procedural safeguards. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, effectively quashing the penalties imposed on the exporters for alleged improper diversion of goods under the Focus Market Scheme.
CESTAT adjudicated a customs export scheme dispute involving penalty provisions under sections 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal ruled that statements recorded under section 108 cannot be considered admissible evidence under section 138B without proper cross-examination procedures. The tribunal found the penalty imposition against the parties was unsupported by substantive evidence, specifically rejecting statements recorded without procedural safeguards. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, effectively quashing the penalties imposed on the exporters for alleged improper diversion of goods under the Focus Market Scheme.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
