Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Laser engraving machines were treated as classifiable under tariff heading 84561100 as machine-tools operated by laser, but anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 15/2023-Customs (ADD) depended on whether the goods fell within the defined Product Under Consideration, namely industrial laser machines for cutting, marking or welding. Because the imported goods were described as compact, portable, low-powered engraving machines for artistic, decorative and small commercial uses, and the DGTR findings excluded laser engraving machines from the PUC, the Authority held that tariff classification alone did not attract anti-dumping duty. Duty was therefore not leviable, subject to physical verification of the goods at import.
Laser engraving machines were treated as classifiable under tariff heading 84561100 as machine-tools operated by laser, but anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 15/2023-Customs (ADD) depended on whether the goods fell within the defined Product Under Consideration, namely industrial laser machines for cutting, marking or welding. Because the imported goods were described as compact, portable, low-powered engraving machines for artistic, decorative and small commercial uses, and the DGTR findings excluded laser engraving machines from the PUC, the Authority held that tariff classification alone did not attract anti-dumping duty. Duty was therefore not leviable, subject to physical verification of the goods at import.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
