Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The CESTAT upheld the classification of squid liver powder under Customs Tariff Heading 2309 9090, rejecting the appellant's contention for classification under 2301 2011. The tribunal found that reliance solely on the Chemical Examiner's report, which was not shared with the appellant, and extraneous grounds not raised in original proceedings was improper. The appellant's own supplier documentation and previous classification under 2309 9090 supported the final decision, and no prejudice was demonstrated. The appellant's inconsistent stance and fresh pleas introduced during the hearing, including the claim that the product is an attractant, were deemed inadmissible and without merit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no substantive change to the classification order.
The CESTAT upheld the classification of squid liver powder under Customs Tariff Heading 2309 9090, rejecting the appellant's contention for classification under 2301 2011. The tribunal found that reliance solely on the Chemical Examiner's report, which was not shared with the appellant, and extraneous grounds not raised in original proceedings was improper. The appellant's own supplier documentation and previous classification under 2309 9090 supported the final decision, and no prejudice was demonstrated. The appellant's inconsistent stance and fresh pleas introduced during the hearing, including the claim that the product is an attractant, were deemed inadmissible and without merit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no substantive change to the classification order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
