Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
Complete knee, hip and shoulder replacement systems were classified as artificial joints, while separately imported stem and acetabular components were classified as other artificial parts of the body. The claim that they were orthopaedic appliances failed because Heading 9021 and the HSN distinguish support devices from replacement prostheses. Exemption under Sr. No. 385 of Notification No. 45/2025-Cus was denied: Entry B(1) applies only to orthopaedic appliances, and Entry E(9) requires implants for severely physically handicapped patients. The applicant did not show that these general-use implants met that narrower description, so strict construction of the exemption defeated the claim.
Complete knee, hip and shoulder replacement systems were classified as artificial joints, while separately imported stem and acetabular components were classified as other artificial parts of the body. The claim that they were orthopaedic appliances failed because Heading 9021 and the HSN distinguish support devices from replacement prostheses. Exemption under Sr. No. 385 of Notification No. 45/2025-Cus was denied: Entry B(1) applies only to orthopaedic appliances, and Entry E(9) requires implants for severely physically handicapped patients. The applicant did not show that these general-use implants met that narrower description, so strict construction of the exemption defeated the claim.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
