Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The AAR held that, on the presented facts and documentary evidence (FSSAI licence, trademark certificate and test report), the applicant's refined rice bran oil is of edible grade and, notwithstanding its marketing as lamp oil, classification must be governed by the product's composition rather than asserted end-use absent explicit tariff provision. Consequently, the oil, when supplied without additives or admixture of other oils, is classifiable under Tariff Heading 1515 90 40 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The ruling denies reclassification based on commercial description and concludes that Sl. No. 87 of Schedule I to Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) is not applicable to alter this classification.
The AAR held that, on the presented facts and documentary evidence (FSSAI licence, trademark certificate and test report), the applicant's refined rice bran oil is of edible grade and, notwithstanding its marketing as lamp oil, classification must be governed by the product's composition rather than asserted end-use absent explicit tariff provision. Consequently, the oil, when supplied without additives or admixture of other oils, is classifiable under Tariff Heading 1515 90 40 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The ruling denies reclassification based on commercial description and concludes that Sl. No. 87 of Schedule I to Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) is not applicable to alter this classification.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.