Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 96001 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.