Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
CESTAT held that the imported in-vitro diagnostic reagents are correctly classifiable under CTI 3822 0019 as "other diagnostic reagents for medical diagnosis" and not under the residual entry CTI 3822 0090. The Tribunal found that N/N. 16/2019 and 17/2019 merely revised the rate of duty and did not alter the tariff description under heading 3822, rendering the contrary conclusion of the Commr (Appeals) factually and legally erroneous. Noting that the department had earlier accepted, on merits, an Order-in-Appeal classifying identical goods of the same appellant under CTI 3822 0019, CESTAT held that the department could not now adopt a contrary stand. The impugned order dated 20.07.2021 was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
CESTAT held that the imported in-vitro diagnostic reagents are correctly classifiable under CTI 3822 0019 as "other diagnostic reagents for medical diagnosis" and not under the residual entry CTI 3822 0090. The Tribunal found that N/N. 16/2019 and 17/2019 merely revised the rate of duty and did not alter the tariff description under heading 3822, rendering the contrary conclusion of the Commr (Appeals) factually and legally erroneous. Noting that the department had earlier accepted, on merits, an Order-in-Appeal classifying identical goods of the same appellant under CTI 3822 0019, CESTAT held that the department could not now adopt a contrary stand. The impugned order dated 20.07.2021 was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
