Mechanical approval under search assessment law vitiates assessments when sanction lacks application of mind; retrospective curative provision cannot ...
Foreign portfolio investment liberalisation extends listed equity access to all individual persons resident outside India, subject to limit monitoring...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2381 to 2400 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT held that empty cylinders along with valves imported by the Appellant for use in ambulances to carry medical grade oxygen are correctly classifiable under CTH 90189099 as life supporting medical equipment, and not under CTH 73110030 as containers for carrying compressed or liquefied gases. The Tribunal set aside the demand of differential duty on account of re-classification. It held that the imported cylinders are excluded from the purview of Gas Cylinder Rules 2004/2016 and the Explosives Act as they are specifically meant for fitting in ambulances. The Tribunal also set aside the confiscation of goods for alleged violation of these rules. Further, the extended period of limitation invoked by the Department was held unsustainable as there was no suppression of information by the Appellant. Consequently, no penalty was imposable. The appeal was allowed.
The CESTAT held that empty cylinders along with valves imported by the Appellant for use in ambulances to carry medical grade oxygen are correctly classifiable under CTH 90189099 as life supporting medical equipment, and not under CTH 73110030 as containers for carrying compressed or liquefied gases. The Tribunal set aside the demand of differential duty on account of re-classification. It held that the imported cylinders are excluded from the purview of Gas Cylinder Rules 2004/2016 and the Explosives Act as they are specifically meant for fitting in ambulances. The Tribunal also set aside the confiscation of goods for alleged violation of these rules. Further, the extended period of limitation invoked by the Department was held unsustainable as there was no suppression of information by the Appellant. Consequently, no penalty was imposable. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.