Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Scientific research association approval requires continuing SIRO status, annual donation reporting, and donor certificates for the approved foundatio...
Scientific research institution approval is conditional on SIRO recognition, annual donation reporting, donor certification, and prescribed compliance...
Page of 4878
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 97553 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4878 
