Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Public servant status under anti-corruption law extends to recognised stock exchange leadership; constitutional and sanction challenges do not succeed...
Acquiescence, homebuyer protection and clean-slate resolution principles prevent landowners from disrupting an integrated project through late termina...
CESTAT, an Appellate Tribunal, addressed the classification of aerated drinks and fruit pulp or fruit juice-based drinks under different brand names. The issue was whether to classify them under Tariff Heading 2202 9020 or Chapter Sub-heading 22021020 for the period April 2011 to August 2012. The Tribunal referred to a previous case and a decision by a Larger Bench, concluding that the products in question are classifiable under Tariff Item 2202 90 20 as "fruit pulp or fruit juice-based drinks." The Tribunal disagreed with a previous decision cited by the Commissioner. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the Appellant.
CESTAT, an Appellate Tribunal, addressed the classification of aerated drinks and fruit pulp or fruit juice-based drinks under different brand names. The issue was whether to classify them under Tariff Heading 2202 9020 or Chapter Sub-heading 22021020 for the period April 2011 to August 2012. The Tribunal referred to a previous case and a decision by a Larger Bench, concluding that the products in question are classifiable under Tariff Item 2202 90 20 as "fruit pulp or fruit juice-based drinks." The Tribunal disagreed with a previous decision cited by the Commissioner. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the Appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
