Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The dispute centered around the classification of imported goods, calcium carbonate, under the appropriate Customs Tariff Heading (CTH). The revenue classified it as calcium carbonate under CTH 28365000, while the appellant declared it as calcite powder falling under CTH 25369030. The case hinged on the observation of the Chemical Examiner at the Customs Laboratory, Kandla, who opined that the imported goods were calcium carbonate. However, several factors undermined the revenue's claim. Firstly, to classify under CTH 28365000, the goods must conform to Indian Standard specifications, which was not tested. Secondly, Board Circulars 43/2017-Cus. and 15/2009-Cus. acknowledged that the Kandla laboratory lacked the facility to test the imported goods accurately. Furthermore, a CESTAT precedent held that laboratory test reports cannot be accepted when the facility lacks requisite testing capabilities. Consequently, the revenue's claim based solely on the Kandla laboratory report, which lacked proper testing facilities, was deemed untenable. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The dispute centered around the classification of imported goods, calcium carbonate, under the appropriate Customs Tariff Heading (CTH). The revenue classified it as calcium carbonate under CTH 28365000, while the appellant declared it as calcite powder falling under CTH 25369030. The case hinged on the observation of the Chemical Examiner at the Customs Laboratory, Kandla, who opined that the imported goods were calcium carbonate. However, several factors undermined the revenue's claim. Firstly, to classify under CTH 28365000, the goods must conform to Indian Standard specifications, which was not tested. Secondly, Board Circulars 43/2017-Cus. and 15/2009-Cus. acknowledged that the Kandla laboratory lacked the facility to test the imported goods accurately. Furthermore, a CESTAT precedent held that laboratory test reports cannot be accepted when the facility lacks requisite testing capabilities. Consequently, the revenue's claim based solely on the Kandla laboratory report, which lacked proper testing facilities, was deemed untenable. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
