Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
RPA (Remote Pilot Aircraft) for military use defined to include drones/UAV/UAS; exemptions limited to specified defence imports with Joint Secretary c...
Transfer of going concern and transfer of input tax credit under GST allowed; exemption applies though interstate ledger transfers left to authorities...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6701 to 6720 of 96406 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Revocation of a customs broker licence and forfeiture of security deposit for alleged breaches of regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e), 10(f) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 turned on whether the broker failed core due diligence and advisory obligations. The charge under regulation 10(a) failed because the authorization was on record and its authenticity was undisputed, so later non-contact with the signatory could not invalidate it. The charges under regulations 10(f) and 10(n) failed as no specific special procedure was shown for the goods and stipulated online verification had been undertaken. Only regulation 10(d) was sustained for failure to advise the client appropriately; consequently, revocation and forfeiture were set aside as disproportionate, while a monetary penalty was upheld. - CESTAT
Revocation of a customs broker licence and forfeiture of security deposit for alleged breaches of regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e), 10(f) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 turned on whether the broker failed core due diligence and advisory obligations. The charge under regulation 10(a) failed because the authorization was on record and its authenticity was undisputed, so later non-contact with the signatory could not invalidate it. The charges under regulations 10(f) and 10(n) failed as no specific special procedure was shown for the goods and stipulated online verification had been undertaken. Only regulation 10(d) was sustained for failure to advise the client appropriately; consequently, revocation and forfeiture were set aside as disproportionate, while a monetary penalty was upheld. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
