Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
821 to 840 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Food testing kits were held classifiable under CTI 3822 00 90, not CTI 3822 00 19, because they were meant for food testing and not diagnostic use; the importer's claim to exemption under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus for diagnostic test kits therefore failed. The Tribunal also held that describing the goods as "Diagnostic use only" in self-assessment amounted to conscious misdeclaration, justifying invocation of the extended period of limitation. On that basis, the penalties imposed on the importer and its directors were upheld, and the impugned order was sustained in full.
Food testing kits were held classifiable under CTI 3822 00 90, not CTI 3822 00 19, because they were meant for food testing and not diagnostic use; the importer's claim to exemption under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus for diagnostic test kits therefore failed. The Tribunal also held that describing the goods as "Diagnostic use only" in self-assessment amounted to conscious misdeclaration, justifying invocation of the extended period of limitation. On that basis, the penalties imposed on the importer and its directors were upheld, and the impugned order was sustained in full.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.