Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
Mere misclassification of imported goods in the Bill of Entry did not, by itself, amount to misdeclaration under section 111(m) or make the goods liable to confiscation. The Tribunal held that penalty under section 112(a)(ii) is sustainable only where the goods are first liable to confiscation under section 111; in the absence of confiscability, the penalty had no legal basis. Even if the goods were wrongly self-assessed or classified, that did not establish liability to confiscation on the facts considered. The penalty was therefore set aside.
Mere misclassification of imported goods in the Bill of Entry did not, by itself, amount to misdeclaration under section 111(m) or make the goods liable to confiscation. The Tribunal held that penalty under section 112(a)(ii) is sustainable only where the goods are first liable to confiscation under section 111; in the absence of confiscability, the penalty had no legal basis. Even if the goods were wrongly self-assessed or classified, that did not establish liability to confiscation on the facts considered. The penalty was therefore set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.