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...
Concessional duty under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus read with the IGCR Rules depends on compliance with the statutory import and end-use mechanism. The Tribunal held that concessional benefit is granted at import on the basis of the declaration transmitted by the jurisdictional officer, while end-use is separately monitored; where the goods were admittedly used for the declared purpose, denial of benefit on grounds of misuse was not justified. As the record did not show which officer allegedly permitted excess clearance, or that goods were cleared beyond the quantities processed through the statutory system, the alleged excess import was not established. The duty demand and consequential penalty were therefore set aside.
Concessional duty under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus read with the IGCR Rules depends on compliance with the statutory import and end-use mechanism. The Tribunal held that concessional benefit is granted at import on the basis of the declaration transmitted by the jurisdictional officer, while end-use is separately monitored; where the goods were admittedly used for the declared purpose, denial of benefit on grounds of misuse was not justified. As the record did not show which officer allegedly permitted excess clearance, or that goods were cleared beyond the quantities processed through the statutory system, the alleged excess import was not established. The duty demand and consequential penalty were therefore set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.