Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 95918 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 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
