Charity-run tree plantation and maintenance for environmental preservation qualifies as "charitable activity", making supplies GST-exempt under Notifi...
Drawings/designs supply and erection supervision fees from German contractor: designs non-taxable; supervision taxed as FTS/PE depending on six-month ...
Imported analyser diagnostic cartridges treated as accessories with analyser system, not standalone diagnostic reagents; extended limitation and penal...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7661 to 7680 of 96363 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 "ethylene ripener" containing ethephon is an "insecticide" under Section 3(e) of the Insecticide Act, 1968, as ethephon is listed in its Schedule. Even if imported for non-insecticidal use, DGFT Notification No. 106/(RE-2013)/2009-2014 validly mandates an import permit from the Registration Committee, which the importers failed to obtain despite their undertaking before the Bombay HC. The goods, imported in violation of the notification and misdeclared to circumvent restrictions, were rightly held liable to confiscation under Section 111(d), (f) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option of re-export, failing which absolute confiscation and destruction would follow. Penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA on all appellants, including the customs broker, were upheld. The appeals were dismissed.
CESTAT held that the imported "ethylene ripener" containing ethephon is an "insecticide" under Section 3(e) of the Insecticide Act, 1968, as ethephon is listed in its Schedule. Even if imported for non-insecticidal use, DGFT Notification No. 106/(RE-2013)/2009-2014 validly mandates an import permit from the Registration Committee, which the importers failed to obtain despite their undertaking before the Bombay HC. The goods, imported in violation of the notification and misdeclared to circumvent restrictions, were rightly held liable to confiscation under Section 111(d), (f) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option of re-export, failing which absolute confiscation and destruction would follow. Penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA on all appellants, including the customs broker, were upheld. The appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
