Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
Page of 4790
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
481 to 500 of 95794 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT held that the imported animal feed supplement (Nutracor 88) was correctly classified under CTH 23099090, invalidating the appellant's original classification. The tribunal rejected the revenue's attempt to invoke extended limitation period, finding no suppression of facts or intentional mis-declaration. The court set aside the demands raised under extended limitation, redemption fine, and penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act. The appellant was required to pay differential duty for the normal limitation period without additional penalties, effectively partially allowing the appeal while maintaining the revised tariff classification.
CESTAT held that the imported animal feed supplement (Nutracor 88) was correctly classified under CTH 23099090, invalidating the appellant's original classification. The tribunal rejected the revenue's attempt to invoke extended limitation period, finding no suppression of facts or intentional mis-declaration. The court set aside the demands raised under extended limitation, redemption fine, and penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act. The appellant was required to pay differential duty for the normal limitation period without additional penalties, effectively partially allowing the appeal while maintaining the revised tariff classification.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.