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...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1501 to 1520 of 96363 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT held that a Customs Broker's alleged breach of Regulation 10(d) was not proved because the department produced no credible material showing absence of advice to the exporter, while the exporter's letter confirming such advice could not be rejected for lack of written particulars. The alleged breach of Regulation 10(e) also failed, as neither the show cause notice nor the order identified any specific incorrect information said to have been imparted. On Regulation 10(n), the Tribunal held that verification is satisfied by checking issued IEC, GSTIN, identity and address documents through reliable records; it does not require a physical visit or supervision of government authorities. Revocation of licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty were set aside.
CESTAT held that a Customs Broker's alleged breach of Regulation 10(d) was not proved because the department produced no credible material showing absence of advice to the exporter, while the exporter's letter confirming such advice could not be rejected for lack of written particulars. The alleged breach of Regulation 10(e) also failed, as neither the show cause notice nor the order identified any specific incorrect information said to have been imparted. On Regulation 10(n), the Tribunal held that verification is satisfied by checking issued IEC, GSTIN, identity and address documents through reliable records; it does not require a physical visit or supervision of government authorities. Revocation of licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
