Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Condonation of delay permits statutory appeal restoration where inadequate service explanation prevented consideration of reassessment and taxable-inc...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 95875 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 appeals, set aside the impugned order and quashed penalties and confiscation measures. The Tribunal held penalties under s.114(iii) and s.114AA could not be sustained against certain partners and firms because there was no evidence of their knowledge, collusion or acts rendering goods liable to confiscation under s.113; the culpable acts were attributed to the tug's master and a supervisor who procured port clearance and effected supplies without filing manifests or shipping bills. The owner of the tug was absolved of liability and the confiscation and redemption fine under s.115(2) were held unsustainable. The Commissioner's order dated August 2015 was set aside and the appeals allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order and quashed penalties and confiscation measures. The Tribunal held penalties under s.114(iii) and s.114AA could not be sustained against certain partners and firms because there was no evidence of their knowledge, collusion or acts rendering goods liable to confiscation under s.113; the culpable acts were attributed to the tug's master and a supervisor who procured port clearance and effected supplies without filing manifests or shipping bills. The owner of the tug was absolved of liability and the confiscation and redemption fine under s.115(2) were held unsustainable. The Commissioner's order dated August 2015 was set aside and the appeals allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
