Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
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...
The case involved the classification of Diagnostic Kits as "drugs" under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The court held that devices used for diagnosis fall under the definition of "drug" only if specified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette. Diagnostic Kits were deemed more akin to "devices" than "medicines" and would be considered as "drugs" under sub-section (iv) of Section 3 (b) if notified by the Central Government. The court noted the absence of evidence showing Diagnostic Kits are considered "medicines" or "drugs" by medical practitioners. If the Kits are notified as "drugs," they would be charged at 4% under Entry 48 of Schedule C; otherwise, they would fall under Entry 165 of Schedule D and be taxed at 12.5%. The court disposed of the petition accordingly.
The case involved the classification of Diagnostic Kits as "drugs" under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The court held that devices used for diagnosis fall under the definition of "drug" only if specified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette. Diagnostic Kits were deemed more akin to "devices" than "medicines" and would be considered as "drugs" under sub-section (iv) of Section 3 (b) if notified by the Central Government. The court noted the absence of evidence showing Diagnostic Kits are considered "medicines" or "drugs" by medical practitioners. If the Kits are notified as "drugs," they would be charged at 4% under Entry 48 of Schedule C; otherwise, they would fall under Entry 165 of Schedule D and be taxed at 12.5%. The court disposed of the petition accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
