PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT held that the imported product, described in the Bills of Entry and supporting documents as "LPGbutane," is correctly classifiable as a mixture of propane and butane under heading 2711 1300, since butane predominates up to 98%. The contention of the appellant-importer that LPG cannot be imported as such and is always in the form of propane, butane, or their mixture was rejected, particularly in light of subsequent exemptions specifically extending to LPG, liquefied propane, liquefied butane, and their mixtures, evidencing distinct tariff treatment. Consequently, the benefit of Sl. No. 75(E) of Customs N/N. 21/2002 and Sl. No. 10 of Central Excise N/N. 4/2005 was denied, and the appeal was dismissed.
CESTAT held that the imported product, described in the Bills of Entry and supporting documents as "LPGbutane," is correctly classifiable as a mixture of propane and butane under heading 2711 1300, since butane predominates up to 98%. The contention of the appellant-importer that LPG cannot be imported as such and is always in the form of propane, butane, or their mixture was rejected, particularly in light of subsequent exemptions specifically extending to LPG, liquefied propane, liquefied butane, and their mixtures, evidencing distinct tariff treatment. Consequently, the benefit of Sl. No. 75(E) of Customs N/N. 21/2002 and Sl. No. 10 of Central Excise N/N. 4/2005 was denied, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.