CCE, Aurangabad Vs Videocon Industries Ltd. (Supreme Court) Sub- Whether LCD panels are to be classified as part of television sets or audio players or independently for charging Customs duty? The Apex Court in this case was dealing with the classification of LCD Panels which were imported and were to be used as part of […]
The Constitutional Bench ruled that allows Circumstantial Evidence did not dilute the requirement of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Since there were no circumstances brought on record which would prove the demand for gratification, therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act were not established and consequently, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) would not be attracted.
Section 12A of IBC permits withdrawal of applications admitted under sections 7, 9 and 10 of IBC. It permits withdrawal of such applications with approval of 90 percent voting share of CoC in such manner as may be specified.
Supreme Court held that date of Panchnama last drawn would be relevant date for considering period of limitation of two years and not last date of authorisation
Signatories/directors cannot escape from their penal liability under Section 138 of NI Act by citing its dissolution. What is dissolved, is only company, not personal penal liability of accused covered under Section 141 of NI Act.
Once Resolution Plan stands approved, no alterations/modifications are permissible. It is either to be approved or disapproved, but any modification after approval of Resolution Plan by CoC, based on its commercial wisdom, is not open for judicial review unless it is found to be not in conformity with mandate of IBC Code.
SC held that writ petition entertained by Sikkim HC for tax levied by Government of Goa, merely because petitioning company has its office in Gangtok, Sikkim, is unjustifiable and lacks jurisdiction.
Who can be said to be related person u/s 4(4)(c) of Central Excise Act, 1944 to enable authorities to discard transaction value & arrive at a valuation otherwise?
SC held that fixation of MRP must have been mandated by law and in the present case the institutional sale to paramilitary forces being exempted from such fixation under legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules,2011, the voluntary fixing of the MRP could not make the respondent eligible to get the exemption on institutional sales and thus allowed the SLP of the department.
Victory Iron Works Ltd. Vs Jitendra Lohia (Supreme Court of India) The main ground of attack of the appellants to the impugned orders of the NCLT and NCLAT is that by virtue of the Explanation under Section 18 of the Code and also by virtue of the judicial pronouncements, the disputes between the Corporate Debtor […]
