Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 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" ?
NCLAT allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration limited to the specific queries identified by the Tribunal, directing the CoC to re-evaluate the resolution plan in accordance with Section 30(2)(b)(ii) and Section 30(4) of the Code and relevant CIRP regulations. The Tribunal found defects - alleged unequal treatment of creditors of the same class, non-deposit of performance security contravening Regulation 36B(4A), and failure to disclose source of funds and demonstrate feasibility/viability - and held that the AA may direct reconsideration of those elements but cannot order total re-approval of the plan. Appeal allowed by way of remand; parties directed to comply with the SC precedents cited.
NCLAT allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration limited to the specific queries identified by the Tribunal, directing the CoC to re-evaluate the resolution plan in accordance with Section 30(2)(b)(ii) and Section 30(4) of the Code and relevant CIRP regulations. The Tribunal found defects - alleged unequal treatment of creditors of the same class, non-deposit of performance security contravening Regulation 36B(4A), and failure to disclose source of funds and demonstrate feasibility/viability - and held that the AA may direct reconsideration of those elements but cannot order total re-approval of the plan. Appeal allowed by way of remand; parties directed to comply with the SC precedents cited.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.