Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT held that invoking jurisdiction under section 28AAA of the Customs Act without DGFT's license cancellation is invalid. The tribunal found procedural irregularities in the original order, determining that customs authorities cannot unilaterally challenge export scrip validity without DGFT's formal cancellation or initiation of cancellation proceedings. The appellate tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling that the exporter's responsibility is to prove goods reached the focus market, but penalties against the appellant and its director were unsustainable due to lack of substantive evidence and procedural defects. Appeal was consequently allowed, effectively nullifying the original confiscation and penalty orders.
CESTAT held that invoking jurisdiction under section 28AAA of the Customs Act without DGFT's license cancellation is invalid. The tribunal found procedural irregularities in the original order, determining that customs authorities cannot unilaterally challenge export scrip validity without DGFT's formal cancellation or initiation of cancellation proceedings. The appellate tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling that the exporter's responsibility is to prove goods reached the focus market, but penalties against the appellant and its director were unsustainable due to lack of substantive evidence and procedural defects. Appeal was consequently allowed, effectively nullifying the original confiscation and penalty orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
