Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant regarding BIS marking requirements on imported Stainless Steel products. The shipment occurred on January 13, 2017, before the Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control Order) 2016 came into effect on February 7, 2017. As per Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020, import date is considered as the shipment date. The tribunal rejected the argument that prior knowledge of upcoming regulations created an obligation to affix BIS marks. Following precedent from Metro Bright Bar India case, CESTAT held that since shipment predated the Quality Control Order's implementation, BIS marking was not required. The confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant regarding BIS marking requirements on imported Stainless Steel products. The shipment occurred on January 13, 2017, before the Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control Order) 2016 came into effect on February 7, 2017. As per Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020, import date is considered as the shipment date. The tribunal rejected the argument that prior knowledge of upcoming regulations created an obligation to affix BIS marks. Following precedent from Metro Bright Bar India case, CESTAT held that since shipment predated the Quality Control Order's implementation, BIS marking was not required. The confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
