Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Classification of imported goods - Applicable rate of IGST - 28% or 18% - Scope of the term "i.e."- Interpretation of the Notification No.1/2017-IGST-Rate - Import of branded nutrition/ dietary supplements - Regarding the classification of goods, it determined that the appellant's goods did not fall under the specific items listed under Entry No. 9 of Schedule IV. Instead, they were found to be covered under Entry No. 453 of Schedule III, as they were not specified in any other schedule. - In relation to the interpretation of the Schedule IV entry, the Tribunal reiterated that the use of "i.e." in the entry limited its scope to the items listed thereafter, excluding any other products not explicitly mentioned.
Classification of imported goods - Applicable rate of IGST - 28% or 18% - Scope of the term "i.e."- Interpretation of the Notification No.1/2017-IGST-Rate - Import of branded nutrition/ dietary supplements - Regarding the classification of goods, it determined that the appellant's goods did not fall under the specific items listed under Entry No. 9 of Schedule IV. Instead, they were found to be covered under Entry No. 453 of Schedule III, as they were not specified in any other schedule. - In relation to the interpretation of the Schedule IV entry, the Tribunal reiterated that the use of "i.e." in the entry limited its scope to the items listed thereafter, excluding any other products not explicitly mentioned.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.