Depreciation and routine compliance expenses disallowance did not prove inaccurate particulars or misreporting; penalty sustained only on foreign trav...
Page of 4823
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3381 to 3400 of 96456 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
