Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 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" ?
Roasted arecanut was held classifiable under CTH 20081920 because the advance ruling in the importer's own case remained binding on the Department in the absence of any stay, and the court-directed laboratory report showing moisture content of 2.09% supported classification as roasted arecanut. Applying the Madras High Court ratio that goods with moisture below 10% qualify as roasted arecanut, the Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner (Appeals). As the goods were correctly classified, the allegation of misdeclaration failed, confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) was unsustainable, and the penalty was set aside.
Roasted arecanut was held classifiable under CTH 20081920 because the advance ruling in the importer's own case remained binding on the Department in the absence of any stay, and the court-directed laboratory report showing moisture content of 2.09% supported classification as roasted arecanut. Applying the Madras High Court ratio that goods with moisture below 10% qualify as roasted arecanut, the Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner (Appeals). As the goods were correctly classified, the allegation of misdeclaration failed, confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) was unsustainable, and the penalty was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
