Pre-existing disputes over outcome-based professional fees can bar Section 9 insolvency proceedings where contractual entitlement requires investigati...
Corresponding scheduled offences preserve money-laundering jurisdiction despite repeal of the central corruption provision where conduct remains cover...
Concurrent anticipatory-bail jurisdiction permits applications before either forum, while secured evidence may negate custodial interrogation in GST e...
Page of 4899
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
981 to 1000 of 97978 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.