Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6361 to 6380 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Interim release conditions imposed in writ petitions challenging confiscation orders under Section 130 were upheld because detention matters under Section 129 were not comparable. The Court held that once confiscation is ordered under Section 130, title to the goods and conveyance vests in the Government, and the release mechanism under Section 129 no longer applies. Accordingly, interim terms framed for detention proceedings could not be imported into confiscation cases, and the appellants were not entitled to parity with orders passed in other Section 129 matters. The refusal to modify the interim orders was found to be in accordance with law, and both writ appeals were dismissed.
Interim release conditions imposed in writ petitions challenging confiscation orders under Section 130 were upheld because detention matters under Section 129 were not comparable. The Court held that once confiscation is ordered under Section 130, title to the goods and conveyance vests in the Government, and the release mechanism under Section 129 no longer applies. Accordingly, interim terms framed for detention proceedings could not be imported into confiscation cases, and the appellants were not entitled to parity with orders passed in other Section 129 matters. The refusal to modify the interim orders was found to be in accordance with law, and both writ appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.