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 ...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1341 to 1360 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Duty could not be demanded on alleged diversion of duty-free imported marble where a substantial quantity was found in the factory and the balance allegation rested on internet material and section 108 statements that were not proved admissible under section 138B. The Tribunal held that such material was insufficient to establish diversion or duty liability, and set aside the duty demand with interest. Penalty under section 114A also failed because the alleged default was only a post-import non-fulfilment of exemption conditions, not non-levy caused by collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression. Penalties under section 114AA were likewise unsustainable because no false declaration in the import documents was shown.
Duty could not be demanded on alleged diversion of duty-free imported marble where a substantial quantity was found in the factory and the balance allegation rested on internet material and section 108 statements that were not proved admissible under section 138B. The Tribunal held that such material was insufficient to establish diversion or duty liability, and set aside the duty demand with interest. Penalty under section 114A also failed because the alleged default was only a post-import non-fulfilment of exemption conditions, not non-levy caused by collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression. Penalties under section 114AA were likewise unsustainable because no false declaration in the import documents was shown.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
