Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Statements recorded under Customs Act, 1962 Section 108 were treated as sufficient to sustain confiscation where the appellant and vehicle drivers admitted that peas were brought from Nepal through unauthorised routes, and those statements were neither retracted nor discredited. The later claim of lawful import or local purchase was rejected because it was inconsistent and unsupported by purchase or payment records, so the confiscation of the seized peas was upheld. Penalty under Section 112(b), however, required a finding of mens rea; as no authority had recorded guilty knowledge or intention, the penalty was set aside despite the confiscation finding.
Statements recorded under Customs Act, 1962 Section 108 were treated as sufficient to sustain confiscation where the appellant and vehicle drivers admitted that peas were brought from Nepal through unauthorised routes, and those statements were neither retracted nor discredited. The later claim of lawful import or local purchase was rejected because it was inconsistent and unsupported by purchase or payment records, so the confiscation of the seized peas was upheld. Penalty under Section 112(b), however, required a finding of mens rea; as no authority had recorded guilty knowledge or intention, the penalty was set aside despite the confiscation finding.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
