NPCI-based bank account validation for IEC applications and modifications enables real-time validation; incorrect details block submission or trigger ...
Creation/Invocation of pledge of securities through depository system: standardized pledge forms, notice requirement and invocation notifications to p...
Calendar Spread margin benefit for Single Stock Derivatives suspended on expiry day for expiring contracts; exchanges must implement systems and rule ...
Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
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.