Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2002 (4) TMI 687

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - The application by the Commissioner is for stay of operation of the order dated 2-2-2001 of the Tribunal, pending the answer of the Bombay High Court of the reference made to it under Section 130 of the Act of Questions of Law arising out of that order. The High Court has admitted the application on 23-4-2002. 2. The departmental representative....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ics to defeat the just claim of the respondent arising out of the orders of the Tribunal in its favour. He also draws our attention to order of the Bombay High Court passed on a writ petition filed under Article 226 by Nucleus Securities Ltd., one of the appellants before the Tribunal, for enforcement of the Tribunal's order, accepting the offer made by the petitioner to file a written undertaking....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....confiscated as sale proceeds of smuggled gold under Section 121 of the Act and penalty imposed under Sections 112 and 114 of the Act of Rs. 50 lakhs. So far as the latter amount is concerned, the Tribunal found in paragraphs 35 and 37 of its order that there was insufficient evidence to show that the money changers in question (of whom the respondent is one) were liable for penalty under either of....