Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal, determining that the imported fruit pulp/juice product should be classified under Tariff Item 2009 31 00 (single citrus fruit juice) rather than 2106 90 19. The Tribunal found no intentional misclassification or suppression of facts, as the GST rates remained consistent. The demand for differential IGST was set aside, and penalties against both the importer and customs house agent were dropped. The decision emphasized that classification should be based on product composition, not end-use, and mere misclassification does not automatically constitute deliberate suppression of information.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, determining that the imported fruit pulp/juice product should be classified under Tariff Item 2009 31 00 (single citrus fruit juice) rather than 2106 90 19. The Tribunal found no intentional misclassification or suppression of facts, as the GST rates remained consistent. The demand for differential IGST was set aside, and penalties against both the importer and customs house agent were dropped. The decision emphasized that classification should be based on product composition, not end-use, and mere misclassification does not automatically constitute deliberate suppression of information.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.