Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
AAAR affirmed that the product is classifiable under tariff item 38089340 as a plant growth regulator and attracts integrated tax at 18% (9% CGST + 9% SGST) under the referenced notification. The authority held that the appellant bears the onus of full disclosure in an advance ruling application and cannot rely on proprietary nondisclosure by its supplier to avoid that duty; alleged non-party status to prior disputes was immaterial, and submitted laboratory certificates undermined that claim. Challenges that the product is a fertilizer or a vegetable-origin enzyme were rejected for lack of probative evidence. The appellant's appeal is dismissed.
AAAR affirmed that the product is classifiable under tariff item 38089340 as a plant growth regulator and attracts integrated tax at 18% (9% CGST + 9% SGST) under the referenced notification. The authority held that the appellant bears the onus of full disclosure in an advance ruling application and cannot rely on proprietary nondisclosure by its supplier to avoid that duty; alleged non-party status to prior disputes was immaterial, and submitted laboratory certificates undermined that claim. Challenges that the product is a fertilizer or a vegetable-origin enzyme were rejected for lack of probative evidence. The appellant's appeal is dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.