Tariff classification determines GST schedule and rate; beverages in Schedule III attract the higher rate, tea extracts and syrups in Schedule I attra...
Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Admissibility of confessions under Section 108 of the Customs Act and the evidentiary value of prior testimony under Section 244(1) Cr.P.C. were central. The court applied the principle that a co-accused's confession is only corroborative and cannot be treated as substantive proof, and therefore set that aside to examine other evidence. Prior testimony was inadmissible under the Evidence Act because the complainant failed to establish the witness's unavailability or incapacity, and the complainant did not invoke the alternative business-records route. On that basis, the trial court's rejection of the testimony and acquittal of the remaining accused was upheld.
Admissibility of confessions under Section 108 of the Customs Act and the evidentiary value of prior testimony under Section 244(1) Cr.P.C. were central. The court applied the principle that a co-accused's confession is only corroborative and cannot be treated as substantive proof, and therefore set that aside to examine other evidence. Prior testimony was inadmissible under the Evidence Act because the complainant failed to establish the witness's unavailability or incapacity, and the complainant did not invoke the alternative business-records route. On that basis, the trial court's rejection of the testimony and acquittal of the remaining accused was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
