Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
AT dismissed the appeal challenging enhancement of penalty under section 19(1), holding that the respondents were not the masterminds behind outward remittances and fabricated import documentation alleged to contravene section 3(b) and section 10(6) of FEMA read with Reg. 6(1) of the 2000 Regulations. The Tribunal accepted respondents' plea that remittances were effected at the instance of unidentified third parties who used respondents' bank accounts and that the enforcement agency failed to apprehend or effectively investigate those alleged principal wrongdoers. Given this, enhancement of penalty was unjustified. The appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit, without prejudice to the merits of respondents' pending cross-appeals.
AT dismissed the appeal challenging enhancement of penalty under section 19(1), holding that the respondents were not the masterminds behind outward remittances and fabricated import documentation alleged to contravene section 3(b) and section 10(6) of FEMA read with Reg. 6(1) of the 2000 Regulations. The Tribunal accepted respondents' plea that remittances were effected at the instance of unidentified third parties who used respondents' bank accounts and that the enforcement agency failed to apprehend or effectively investigate those alleged principal wrongdoers. Given this, enhancement of penalty was unjustified. The appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit, without prejudice to the merits of respondents' pending cross-appeals.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.