Follow:
- Next story The Chennai Bench of Custom, Excise, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) recently set aside the confiscation made by the Commissioner of Custom Sea on the ground that the jewellery imported was not prohibited, even if the permissible limit for importation of jewellery has been exceeded, it is unlawful to deny the option to redeem goods on payment of fine after confiscation.
- Previous story In absence of ‘intent to conceal’ cannot be construed as smuggled: CESTAT CESTAT directs Customs Authorities to return confiscated gold to Foreign National- lack of evidence and flimsy investigation by the authorities. Held that in the absence of ‘intent to conceal’ cannot be construed as smuggled. Subscribe to updates Ahamed Gani Natchiar Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) Appearances For Appellant: Ms. Shabnam Banu- Appearances For Respondent: Department Representative- Joint Commissioner CESTAT directs Customs Authorities to return confiscated gold to Foreign National- lack of evidence and flimsy investigation by the authorities. Held that in the absence of ‘intent to conceal’ cannot be construed as smuggled. This appeal arose before The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) challenging on the absolute confiscation of 626 grams of gold jewellery that belonged to the Appellant, a resident
Recent Posts
- HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.O.P.No.9848 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.Nos.7042 & 7043 of 2026 Abdul Khader Mohammed Farook (M/56), S/o.Abdul Khader, No.59, M.K.N.Road, Guindy, Chennai-600032. PAN: AAHPF4076K. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1[1], Numgambakkam, … Petitioner Chennai-600034. … Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records relating to E.O.C.C.No.133 of 2019 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Egmore, Chennai and quash the same. For Petitioner : Ms.N.Lavanya For Respondent : Ms.M.Sheela, Senior Standing Counsel (Income Tax) and Mr.H.Siddarth, Junior Standing Counsel (Income Tax) ORDER The petitioner/accused facing trial for offence under Section 276C(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 before the learned Additional Chief
- THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2193 /2026 [@ SLP [CRL.] NO.18828/2025] MOHAN KARTHIK & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. Respondent(s) O R D E R Leave granted. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents.
- sekarreporter1: https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/parameters-for-sections-1563-200-crpc-are-different-supreme-court-sets-aside-hc-order-allowing-second-1563-plea-532935 [05/05, 15:23] sekarreporter1: The Supreme Court has held that the parameters governing the invocation of Sections 156(3) and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 operate in distinct fields, setting aside a High Court order that had
- https://x.com/i/status/2051594369271271840 [05/05, 15:20] sekarreporter1: ‘Parameters For Sections 156(3) & 200 CrPC Are Different’: Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Allowing Second 156(3) Plea |@mittal_mtn
- Sabarimala Reference Hearing – Day 11 | 05.05.2026* *9-Judge Constitution Bench | CJI Surya Kant presiding* *Bench*: Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, R. Mahadevan, Prasanna B. Varale, Joymalya Bagchi 28ac
More
Recent Posts
- HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.O.P.No.9848 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.Nos.7042 & 7043 of 2026 Abdul Khader Mohammed Farook (M/56), S/o.Abdul Khader, No.59, M.K.N.Road, Guindy, Chennai-600032. PAN: AAHPF4076K. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1[1], Numgambakkam, … Petitioner Chennai-600034. … Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records relating to E.O.C.C.No.133 of 2019 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Egmore, Chennai and quash the same. For Petitioner : Ms.N.Lavanya For Respondent : Ms.M.Sheela, Senior Standing Counsel (Income Tax) and Mr.H.Siddarth, Junior Standing Counsel (Income Tax) ORDER The petitioner/accused facing trial for offence under Section 276C(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 before the learned Additional Chief
- THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2193 /2026 [@ SLP [CRL.] NO.18828/2025] MOHAN KARTHIK & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. Respondent(s) O R D E R Leave granted. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents.
- sekarreporter1: https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/parameters-for-sections-1563-200-crpc-are-different-supreme-court-sets-aside-hc-order-allowing-second-1563-plea-532935 [05/05, 15:23] sekarreporter1: The Supreme Court has held that the parameters governing the invocation of Sections 156(3) and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 operate in distinct fields, setting aside a High Court order that had
- https://x.com/i/status/2051594369271271840 [05/05, 15:20] sekarreporter1: ‘Parameters For Sections 156(3) & 200 CrPC Are Different’: Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Allowing Second 156(3) Plea |@mittal_mtn
- Sabarimala Reference Hearing – Day 11 | 05.05.2026* *9-Judge Constitution Bench | CJI Surya Kant presiding* *Bench*: Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, R. Mahadevan, Prasanna B. Varale, Joymalya Bagchi 28ac