Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4784
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95673 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.