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...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Page of 4790
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 95794 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.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
