Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT adjudicated a customs classification dispute involving industrial inkjet printing machines. The tribunal upheld classification under CTI 8443 3910 for specialized printing machinery, rejecting appellant's attempt to classify under a lower-duty heading. The decision confirmed differential duty demand, finding deliberate misdeclaration with intent to evade customs duty. The tribunal sustained penalties under Sections 114A and reduced individual penalty under Section 112(a) to Rs.2,50,000/-. Customs Appeal No.55672 was partially allowed, while Appeal No.55671 was dismissed, affirming the original order's core findings regarding classification and duty liability.
CESTAT adjudicated a customs classification dispute involving industrial inkjet printing machines. The tribunal upheld classification under CTI 8443 3910 for specialized printing machinery, rejecting appellant's attempt to classify under a lower-duty heading. The decision confirmed differential duty demand, finding deliberate misdeclaration with intent to evade customs duty. The tribunal sustained penalties under Sections 114A and reduced individual penalty under Section 112(a) to Rs.2,50,000/-. Customs Appeal No.55672 was partially allowed, while Appeal No.55671 was dismissed, affirming the original order's core findings regarding classification and duty liability.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.