Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 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" ?
The SC dismissed the appeal, upholding the CESTAT order dated 29-07-2024. The dispute involved classification of imported spare parts for injection moulding machines under Customs Tariff Heading 84779000 versus 84771000, with allegations of applicability of anti-dumping duty under Notification 09/2016-(ADD). The CESTAT found that the Chartered Engineer's report did not establish that the imported goods were partly assembled or possessed essential features of finished machines, thus Note (IV) of Section XVI of the HSN was inapplicable. Consequently, the classification and duty imposition challenged were affirmed, and the appellate tribunal's decision was maintained without interference.
The SC dismissed the appeal, upholding the CESTAT order dated 29-07-2024. The dispute involved classification of imported spare parts for injection moulding machines under Customs Tariff Heading 84779000 versus 84771000, with allegations of applicability of anti-dumping duty under Notification 09/2016-(ADD). The CESTAT found that the Chartered Engineer's report did not establish that the imported goods were partly assembled or possessed essential features of finished machines, thus Note (IV) of Section XVI of the HSN was inapplicable. Consequently, the classification and duty imposition challenged were affirmed, and the appellate tribunal's decision was maintained without interference.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
