Reversal of input tax credit in proportion to exempt supply: specificity of show-cause notice required; order set aside, fresh proceedings allowed wit...
Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Denial of Preferential Treatment under SAFTA overturned where unchallenged Country of Origin certificate warranted exemption under Notification benefi...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6881 to 6900 of 96332 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Imported network interface cards/communication modules were classifiable as "parts" under CTI 8517 70 90, not as machines under CTI 8517 62 90, because an article is not a "part" only if it can perform an independent individual function on a standalone basis; here the goods could not communicate or achieve the intended transmission function unless slotted/assembled and configured with other components, akin to parts that are functionally inseparable from the host apparatus, so the reclassification demand failed. Invocation of the extended limitation period was unsustainable because mere self-assessment and an alleged revenue-motivated classification did not establish willful misstatement or suppression on the facts, so the demand was time-barred; the impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed. - CESTAT
Imported network interface cards/communication modules were classifiable as "parts" under CTI 8517 70 90, not as machines under CTI 8517 62 90, because an article is not a "part" only if it can perform an independent individual function on a standalone basis; here the goods could not communicate or achieve the intended transmission function unless slotted/assembled and configured with other components, akin to parts that are functionally inseparable from the host apparatus, so the reclassification demand failed. Invocation of the extended limitation period was unsustainable because mere self-assessment and an alleged revenue-motivated classification did not establish willful misstatement or suppression on the facts, so the demand was time-barred; the impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
