Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Scientific research association approval requires continuing SIRO status, annual donation reporting, and donor certificates for the approved foundatio...
Scientific research institution approval is conditional on SIRO recognition, annual donation reporting, donor certification, and prescribed compliance...
Page of 4878
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 97553 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 upheld the classification of imported crimp pumps under Customs Tariff Items 8413 5010/8413 5090, confirming they are appliances used for spraying or dispersion of liquid, specifically nasal spray pumps. The appellant's contention for classification under CTI 9616 1020 was rejected. The Court found no error in the CESTAT's determination and declined to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the applicable customs duty levy as per the CESTAT's ruling.
The SC upheld the classification of imported crimp pumps under Customs Tariff Items 8413 5010/8413 5090, confirming they are appliances used for spraying or dispersion of liquid, specifically nasal spray pumps. The appellant's contention for classification under CTI 9616 1020 was rejected. The Court found no error in the CESTAT's determination and declined to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the applicable customs duty levy as per the CESTAT's ruling.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.