Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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.