Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 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.