Country of Origin Certificates and declared transaction value supported preferential customs exemption where authenticity and invoice prices remained ...
Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Polypropylene leno bags were held not classifiable as textile goods under Heading 6305 33 00 because the appellant failed to show that the plastic strips used in weaving satisfied the conditions for treatment as synthetic textile under Section XI Note 1(g) read with Heading 6305. The Court reiterated that there is no estoppel against claiming the correct tariff classification, but that principle does not relieve the importer of proving that the product answers the textile entry. Applying the common parlance test and relying on prior precedent, the Court found the goods were known in the market as plastic sacks, not textile sacks, and left their classification under Heading 3923 2900 undisturbed.
Polypropylene leno bags were held not classifiable as textile goods under Heading 6305 33 00 because the appellant failed to show that the plastic strips used in weaving satisfied the conditions for treatment as synthetic textile under Section XI Note 1(g) read with Heading 6305. The Court reiterated that there is no estoppel against claiming the correct tariff classification, but that principle does not relieve the importer of proving that the product answers the textile entry. Applying the common parlance test and relying on prior precedent, the Court found the goods were known in the market as plastic sacks, not textile sacks, and left their classification under Heading 3923 2900 undisturbed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
