Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
The imported toll management system equipment qualified for exemption under Sl. No. 368 of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. because the first appellant was duly appointed as a sub-contractor for the road project and condition No. 9(a) was sufficiently met; the Tribunal held that the original concession agreement need not name the sub-contractor if subsequent contracts and communications showed authorised engagement. Condition No. 9(b) was also not breached, as the Revenue misread the five-year sale or disposal restriction and the transfer of project equipment to the concessionaire after completion did not defeat the exemption. With exemption upheld, the duty demand, confiscation under Section 111(o), and penalties were set aside.
The imported toll management system equipment qualified for exemption under Sl. No. 368 of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. because the first appellant was duly appointed as a sub-contractor for the road project and condition No. 9(a) was sufficiently met; the Tribunal held that the original concession agreement need not name the sub-contractor if subsequent contracts and communications showed authorised engagement. Condition No. 9(b) was also not breached, as the Revenue misread the five-year sale or disposal restriction and the transfer of project equipment to the concessionaire after completion did not defeat the exemption. With exemption upheld, the duty demand, confiscation under Section 111(o), and penalties were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
