Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 4809 
Join Channel 
