Export obligation removed by notification, customs duty demand invalidated; penalties under s.112 and s.114AA quashed due to inadmissible s.108 statem...
Customs officers must wear and use department-issued body-worn cameras when clearing passenger baggage, with daily secure transfer and 30-day retentio...
Page of 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
10021 to 10040 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned adjudication: imported clear float glass with an absorbent, non-reflecting layer is classifiable under CTH 7005 1090 and qualifies for the Nil BCD benefit under Sl. No. 934 of N/N. 46/2011. The Tribunal found the presence of an absorbent layer to be decisive irrespective of its mode of formation and relied on laboratory test evidence; reclassification to CTH 7005 2990 and application of Sl. No. 935(i) (5% BCD) were held unsustainable. Consequent demands for differential duty, interest and penalties were quashed. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order set aside.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned adjudication: imported clear float glass with an absorbent, non-reflecting layer is classifiable under CTH 7005 1090 and qualifies for the Nil BCD benefit under Sl. No. 934 of N/N. 46/2011. The Tribunal found the presence of an absorbent layer to be decisive irrespective of its mode of formation and relied on laboratory test evidence; reclassification to CTH 7005 2990 and application of Sl. No. 935(i) (5% BCD) were held unsustainable. Consequent demands for differential duty, interest and penalties were quashed. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
