Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4401 to 4420 of 96556 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 allowed the appeal in part. It held that DRI officers are competent to issue show-cause notices under Section 75 read with the relevant rules in drawback matters - the appellant's challenge to DRI jurisdiction was rejected. However, the penalty imposed on the appellant CHA/CB under Sections 114 and 117 was set aside: the allegations related to CHALR-regulated dereliction of CHA duties and did not establish abetment, collusion or wrongful involvement warranting statutory penal provisions; disciplinary remedies under CHALR prevail. Consequential orders imposing monetary penalty under Sections 114/117 were quashed and the appeal disposed of.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal in part. It held that DRI officers are competent to issue show-cause notices under Section 75 read with the relevant rules in drawback matters - the appellant's challenge to DRI jurisdiction was rejected. However, the penalty imposed on the appellant CHA/CB under Sections 114 and 117 was set aside: the allegations related to CHALR-regulated dereliction of CHA duties and did not establish abetment, collusion or wrongful involvement warranting statutory penal provisions; disciplinary remedies under CHALR prevail. Consequential orders imposing monetary penalty under Sections 114/117 were quashed and the appeal disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
