Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
Imported chilli seeds treated with poisonous chemicals and meant solely for sowing were held not to be "spices" under Chapter 09 because they were neither edible nor fit for human consumption; consequently, classification under CTI 0904 was rejected and the goods were held classifiable as seeds for sowing under CTI 1209 99 90, with Rule 3(a) of the GIR not permitting comparison at the eight-digit level. Invocation of the extended limitation period was disallowed as there was no finding of deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty and the bills of entry had been physically assessed, showing departmental awareness; the appellate reliance on a request under section 28(6) was also found unjustified in view of the subsequent withdrawal and contest of classification. Appeal allowed. - CESTAT
Imported chilli seeds treated with poisonous chemicals and meant solely for sowing were held not to be "spices" under Chapter 09 because they were neither edible nor fit for human consumption; consequently, classification under CTI 0904 was rejected and the goods were held classifiable as seeds for sowing under CTI 1209 99 90, with Rule 3(a) of the GIR not permitting comparison at the eight-digit level. Invocation of the extended limitation period was disallowed as there was no finding of deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty and the bills of entry had been physically assessed, showing departmental awareness; the appellate reliance on a request under section 28(6) was also found unjustified in view of the subsequent withdrawal and contest of classification. Appeal allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
