Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
CESTAT ruled imported drawings and designs are correctly classifiable under CTH 49.06, not CTH 84.19. The tribunal determined these were original computer-printed drawings supplied separately from the ETP equipment, relating to post-import activities. The value should not be included in ETP's assessable value u/r 10(1)(b)(iv) of Customs Valuation Rules. The drawings qualified for duty exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus at nil rate. Revenue's contention that drawings constituted pre-import activity was rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) order was upheld and Revenue's appeal dismissed. The classification decision turned on the independent nature of the drawings rather than their connection to subsequently imported equipment.
CESTAT ruled imported drawings and designs are correctly classifiable under CTH 49.06, not CTH 84.19. The tribunal determined these were original computer-printed drawings supplied separately from the ETP equipment, relating to post-import activities. The value should not be included in ETP's assessable value u/r 10(1)(b)(iv) of Customs Valuation Rules. The drawings qualified for duty exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus at nil rate. Revenue's contention that drawings constituted pre-import activity was rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) order was upheld and Revenue's appeal dismissed. The classification decision turned on the independent nature of the drawings rather than their connection to subsequently imported equipment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.