The authority penalized directors for executing related party transactions without fresh or valid approvals. It held that reliance on outdated resolutions violates Section 188. The ruling stresses strict approval requirements.
The ruling held that dashcams are continuous video recording devices and not digital still image cameras. Hence, exemption under Sl. No. 288 was denied, but concessional duty was allowed.
The issue involved non-appointment of an internal auditor despite meeting turnover criteria. The authority held that failure to comply attracts penalty under Section 450.
The issue involved classification of certain oil products under customs law. The Authority allowed withdrawal as the request was made before the ruling. The takeaway is that applications can be withdrawn prior to adjudication.
The issue involved failure to appoint independent directors within the prescribed timeline. The authority held that delay constituted a violation, leading to penalties on the company and its officers.
ROC imposed significant penalties for failing to constitute mandatory committees on time. The ruling makes it clear that delayed compliance does not excuse violations. Companies must adhere strictly to corporate governance timelines under the Companies Act
The authority held that the product is designed solely for smartphones and cannot function independently. The key takeaway is that exclusive use determines classification as a part under tariff heading 8517.
ROC imposed penalties for delay in filing MGT-14 beyond 30 days. The ruling stresses strict compliance with statutory filing timelines.
The ROC penalized the company for a substantial delay in filing board resolutions. It held that compliance deadlines under the Companies Act are strict and cannot be ignored.
ROC imposed penalties for delayed filing of Form MR-1 beyond the 60-day limit. The ruling highlights strict compliance requirements for director appointments.
