Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4381 to 4400 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT upheld the findings of the Adjudicating Authority and Commr (A) that 449 gas cylinders illicitly removed from ship-breaking yards, contrary to Gas Cylinder Rules, 2016 and related regulations, were liable to confiscation under Ss. 111(d) and 111(j) of the Customs Act, 1962, and that penalty on the appellant under S. 112(a) and (b) for abetment was correctly imposed. The Tribunal held that the appellant, though engaged in low-margin business, had violated the mandatory undertaking regarding destruction of cylinders and thus attracted confiscation and penalty. However, exercising discretion, CESTAT further reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 1,40,000 to Rs. 40,000. The appeal was partly allowed to this limited extent and otherwise dismissed.
CESTAT upheld the findings of the Adjudicating Authority and Commr (A) that 449 gas cylinders illicitly removed from ship-breaking yards, contrary to Gas Cylinder Rules, 2016 and related regulations, were liable to confiscation under Ss. 111(d) and 111(j) of the Customs Act, 1962, and that penalty on the appellant under S. 112(a) and (b) for abetment was correctly imposed. The Tribunal held that the appellant, though engaged in low-margin business, had violated the mandatory undertaking regarding destruction of cylinders and thus attracted confiscation and penalty. However, exercising discretion, CESTAT further reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 1,40,000 to Rs. 40,000. The appeal was partly allowed to this limited extent and otherwise dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
