Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC dismissed the appeal and upheld CESTAT's imposition of penalties under ss.112(a) and 112(b) of the CA, 1962 for conspiracy and facilitation of illegal importation, finding no substantial question of law. The G-card holder (Appellant A) was absolved by CESTAT for lack of signature or interaction; the H-card holder (Appellant B) was held complicit based on admissions and prior involvement in clearance of similar consignments; the supervisor (Appellant C) was held liable for active supervision and approval of clearance documents. CESTAT's sympathetic reduction of penalties was endorsed; appellants must deposit the imposed penalties within three months. Appeal dismissed.
The HC dismissed the appeal and upheld CESTAT's imposition of penalties under ss.112(a) and 112(b) of the CA, 1962 for conspiracy and facilitation of illegal importation, finding no substantial question of law. The G-card holder (Appellant A) was absolved by CESTAT for lack of signature or interaction; the H-card holder (Appellant B) was held complicit based on admissions and prior involvement in clearance of similar consignments; the supervisor (Appellant C) was held liable for active supervision and approval of clearance documents. CESTAT's sympathetic reduction of penalties was endorsed; appellants must deposit the imposed penalties within three months. Appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
