Alternative statutory remedy under GST bars writ challenge where classification, notice variance, and hearing disputes require factual appellate revie...
Duplicate PAN cancellation timeframe requires prior administrative representation before judicial intervention, ensuring a time-bound decision on the ...
Natural justice and pre-CIRP labour awards protect termination compensation, permitting withdrawal of court deposits despite later insolvency resoluti...
Arbitration of SEZ sub-lease monetary claims preserves rent, maintenance, termination, improvements and damages disputes while unused premises are vac...
Scientific research approval grants a research association tax recognition, subject to annual donor reporting, certification, and regulatory complianc...
Page of 4891
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 97820 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.