Alternative statutory remedy under GST bars writ challenge where classification, notice variance, and hearing disputes require factual appellate revie...
Duplicate PAN cancellation timeframe requires prior administrative representation before judicial intervention, ensuring a time-bound decision on the ...
Natural justice and pre-CIRP labour awards protect termination compensation, permitting withdrawal of court deposits despite later insolvency resoluti...
Page of 4886
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 97705 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Valuation of the seized goods - (i) Grey metal powder suspected to be Iridium, (ii) Grey metal powder suspected to be Ruthenium, (iii) Micro SD Memory cards, (iv) Stone beads ('Chaton') and (v) Branded watches - The adjudicating authority arrived at the valuation using various sources such as metal bulletins, NIDB data, purchase invoices, and website details. The Appellate Tribunal found the valuation to be appropriate except for Ruthenium, where it disagreed with the method used by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal determined the value of Ruthenium at Rs. 3,00,000 per kg, which was within the range identified by the authority. Accordingly, the duty payable by the appellants was re-quantified based on the revised valuation.
Valuation of the seized goods - (i) Grey metal powder suspected to be Iridium, (ii) Grey metal powder suspected to be Ruthenium, (iii) Micro SD Memory cards, (iv) Stone beads ('Chaton') and (v) Branded watches - The adjudicating authority arrived at the valuation using various sources such as metal bulletins, NIDB data, purchase invoices, and website details. The Appellate Tribunal found the valuation to be appropriate except for Ruthenium, where it disagreed with the method used by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal determined the value of Ruthenium at Rs. 3,00,000 per kg, which was within the range identified by the authority. Accordingly, the duty payable by the appellants was re-quantified based on the revised valuation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4886 
