Maintainability of a Section 7 insolvency petition against a financial service provider denied; appeal dismissed for non maintainability and complex d...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6201 to 6220 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Classification of imported viewing/smart cards was disputed; CESTAT held classification is a matter of opinion and Videocon's self-assessment under CTI 8523 52 90 was correct, setting aside re classification to CTI 8529 90 90. The Tribunal found no valid basis to invoke extended limitation under section 28(4) and therefore quashed the demand. Statements recorded under section 108 were inadmissible because they were not admitted following section 138B procedure, and consequential confiscation and all penalties (including section 114AA and redemption fine requests) were set aside.
Classification of imported viewing/smart cards was disputed; CESTAT held classification is a matter of opinion and Videocon's self-assessment under CTI 8523 52 90 was correct, setting aside re classification to CTI 8529 90 90. The Tribunal found no valid basis to invoke extended limitation under section 28(4) and therefore quashed the demand. Statements recorded under section 108 were inadmissible because they were not admitted following section 138B procedure, and consequential confiscation and all penalties (including section 114AA and redemption fine requests) were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.