Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
Cross country pipeline classification and ITC entitlement: pipelines outside factory treated as immovable, ITC disallowed under Section 17 restriction...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6181 to 6200 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations vitiated disciplinary proceedings because Regulation 17(4) creates a mandatory procedural protection; the inquiry relied on oral statements that the respondent was not permitted to test, and that breach rendered the revocation order unsustainable. The Tribunal correctly set aside the revocation for non compliance with Regulation 17(4) and breach of natural justice. Any findings about prescribed timelines were rendered immaterial where procedural fairness under Regulation 17(4) was violated, and the High Court found no substantial question of law requiring interference.
Denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations vitiated disciplinary proceedings because Regulation 17(4) creates a mandatory procedural protection; the inquiry relied on oral statements that the respondent was not permitted to test, and that breach rendered the revocation order unsustainable. The Tribunal correctly set aside the revocation for non compliance with Regulation 17(4) and breach of natural justice. Any findings about prescribed timelines were rendered immaterial where procedural fairness under Regulation 17(4) was violated, and the High Court found no substantial question of law requiring interference.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.