Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
661 to 680 of 95918 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 orders, holding that the imported quicklime (lump form) is correctly classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 2522.1000 as claimed by the appellant-assessee. Relying on the Tribunal's prior decision and material facts, the Bench found the CaO purity in the consignments to be below 98%, thereby excluding them from Chapter sub-heading 2825.9090 which covers CaO of 98% purity or more. In absence of contrary evidence from Revenue, the reclassification to 2825.9090 was rejected and the original assessment under 2522.1000 was upheld, with consequential relief to the appellant.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders, holding that the imported quicklime (lump form) is correctly classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 2522.1000 as claimed by the appellant-assessee. Relying on the Tribunal's prior decision and material facts, the Bench found the CaO purity in the consignments to be below 98%, thereby excluding them from Chapter sub-heading 2825.9090 which covers CaO of 98% purity or more. In absence of contrary evidence from Revenue, the reclassification to 2825.9090 was rejected and the original assessment under 2522.1000 was upheld, with consequential relief to the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.