Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
Gold, a notified item under Section 123 of the Customs Act, was recovered from an appellant's personal possession and from concealment in a car; the claim of licit acquisition required the claimants to discharge the statutory reverse burden. As the appellants failed to prove lawful import/possession and relied on belated documents and retraction of statements, the gold was held to be smuggled and liable to confiscation under Section 111, resulting in upholding of absolute confiscation. Their knowing involvement in handling, transportation, and possession justified penalties under Section 112(b); the penalties were held reasonable and not liable to interference. Appeal dismissed - CESTAT
Gold, a notified item under Section 123 of the Customs Act, was recovered from an appellant's personal possession and from concealment in a car; the claim of licit acquisition required the claimants to discharge the statutory reverse burden. As the appellants failed to prove lawful import/possession and relied on belated documents and retraction of statements, the gold was held to be smuggled and liable to confiscation under Section 111, resulting in upholding of absolute confiscation. Their knowing involvement in handling, transportation, and possession justified penalties under Section 112(b); the penalties were held reasonable and not liable to interference. Appeal dismissed - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.