Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
A Section 9 IBC application cannot be admitted where the record shows a genuine and plausible pre-existing dispute before the demand notice. Applying Mobilox and later decisions, the Court held that the adjudicating authority at this stage only examines whether a plausible contention requiring investigation exists, not the ultimate merits of the dispute. Written complaints about defective supplies, repeated demands for reconciliation of accounts, a prior police complaint, discrepancies in ledger accounts, and shifting stands on the amount due showed no consensus on liability or quantum and indicated more than a sham defence. The NCLT had correctly rejected the application, and the NCLAT was wrong to reverse that finding.
A Section 9 IBC application cannot be admitted where the record shows a genuine and plausible pre-existing dispute before the demand notice. Applying Mobilox and later decisions, the Court held that the adjudicating authority at this stage only examines whether a plausible contention requiring investigation exists, not the ultimate merits of the dispute. Written complaints about defective supplies, repeated demands for reconciliation of accounts, a prior police complaint, discrepancies in ledger accounts, and shifting stands on the amount due showed no consensus on liability or quantum and indicated more than a sham defence. The NCLT had correctly rejected the application, and the NCLAT was wrong to reverse that finding.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.