Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
441 to 460 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Failure to discharge obligations under Regulation 17(9) raised two legal issues: whether the penalty imposed was excessive and whether security deposit could be forfeited. The Tribunal held that Regulations 8(1) and 20 fix the statutory penalty ceiling at Rs.50,000, so imposing the maximum permitted cannot be treated as disproportionate; and the CBLR does not authorize forfeiture of the security deposit. Applying those statutory prescriptions, the impugned order imposing the maximum permissible penalty and not forfeiting the deposit was found valid, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed. - CESTAT
Failure to discharge obligations under Regulation 17(9) raised two legal issues: whether the penalty imposed was excessive and whether security deposit could be forfeited. The Tribunal held that Regulations 8(1) and 20 fix the statutory penalty ceiling at Rs.50,000, so imposing the maximum permitted cannot be treated as disproportionate; and the CBLR does not authorize forfeiture of the security deposit. Applying those statutory prescriptions, the impugned order imposing the maximum permissible penalty and not forfeiting the deposit was found valid, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
