Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
CESTAT held that synthetic casting tapes are properly classifiable under CTH 30059040 rather than CTH 9021. The Tribunal relied on precedent from Johnson & Johnson case which established that Deltalite Casting Tapes fall under sub-heading 3005.10. The Tribunal determined that the goods were not devices/instruments/appliances that would warrant classification under Heading 90.21. Regarding limitation period, CESTAT upheld the invocation of extended period under Section 28(4) of Customs Act, finding that appellant could not claim ignorance of relevant precedential orders from 1999-2000 when filing Bills of Entry. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.
CESTAT held that synthetic casting tapes are properly classifiable under CTH 30059040 rather than CTH 9021. The Tribunal relied on precedent from Johnson & Johnson case which established that Deltalite Casting Tapes fall under sub-heading 3005.10. The Tribunal determined that the goods were not devices/instruments/appliances that would warrant classification under Heading 90.21. Regarding limitation period, CESTAT upheld the invocation of extended period under Section 28(4) of Customs Act, finding that appellant could not claim ignorance of relevant precedential orders from 1999-2000 when filing Bills of Entry. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.