Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 09.01.2020 and quashed the demand and penalties. The Tribunal held that the second proviso to the relevant Notification had been omitted during the period in issue, removing any statutory obligation on the bank or the appellant to execute the condition purportedly breached; consequently recovery of customs duty was without authority of law. Statements recorded under s.108 were inadmissible because the s.138B procedure was not complied with. In view of these findings the demand under the Notification, penalty under s.112 and penalty against a partner under s.114AA were all set aside.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 09.01.2020 and quashed the demand and penalties. The Tribunal held that the second proviso to the relevant Notification had been omitted during the period in issue, removing any statutory obligation on the bank or the appellant to execute the condition purportedly breached; consequently recovery of customs duty was without authority of law. Statements recorded under s.108 were inadmissible because the s.138B procedure was not complied with. In view of these findings the demand under the Notification, penalty under s.112 and penalty against a partner under s.114AA were all set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.