Personal hearing requirements in GST adjudication were satisfied by prior opportunities and written submissions; appellate limitation received writ-pe...
Interactive flat panels meeting automatic data processing conditions are distinguished from monitors, while later classification clarifications apply ...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
981 to 1000 of 96177 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.