Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
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...
A consortium under a resolution process could not be reconstituted after the original resolution plan had already been approved by the CoC. The Tribunal held that the RFRP clause permitting a change in consortium applied only before plan approval, because eligibility, financial strength, feasibility and viability had already been assessed on the original consortium and its consortium agreement. Induction of a new member with a substantial shareholding after approval created a reconstituted applicant outside the final list of prospective resolution applicants, contrary to the RFRP and the CIRP framework. The plea based on CoC commercial wisdom was rejected, as judicial deference does not extend to plans that fail statutory and process compliance. The remand for reconsideration was upheld.
A consortium under a resolution process could not be reconstituted after the original resolution plan had already been approved by the CoC. The Tribunal held that the RFRP clause permitting a change in consortium applied only before plan approval, because eligibility, financial strength, feasibility and viability had already been assessed on the original consortium and its consortium agreement. Induction of a new member with a substantial shareholding after approval created a reconstituted applicant outside the final list of prospective resolution applicants, contrary to the RFRP and the CIRP framework. The plea based on CoC commercial wisdom was rejected, as judicial deference does not extend to plans that fail statutory and process compliance. The remand for reconsideration was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.