Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
641 to 660 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A statement recorded under section 108 could not sustain penalty because the mandatory procedure under section 138B was not followed, rendering the statement inadmissible for evidentiary reliance. Penalty under section 112(b) also failed because the statutory ingredients were not proved: there was no established dealing with goods liable to confiscation and no of knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were so liable. On these findings, the Tribunal set aside the penalty and allowed the appeal.
A statement recorded under section 108 could not sustain penalty because the mandatory procedure under section 138B was not followed, rendering the statement inadmissible for evidentiary reliance. Penalty under section 112(b) also failed because the statutory ingredients were not proved: there was no established dealing with goods liable to confiscation and no of knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were so liable. On these findings, the Tribunal set aside the penalty and allowed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.