Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
Whether the goods are classifiable as sugar confectionery (HTS 1704 9090) or as coffee preparations (HTS 2101 1200): tribunal held Rule 1 and Rule 3(a) govern classification, applying essential character test; evidence showed sugar is the principal ingredient imparting sweetness while coffee extract is a minor aromatic additive, so the product's essential character remains sugar confectionery - result: classified under 1704 9090. Burden of proof where department proposes a different heading: revenue failed to adduce evidence to rebut the assessee's showing (FSSAI/FSSR classification and product descriptions supporting "candy"), so departmental classification was unsustainable. - CESTAT
Whether the goods are classifiable as sugar confectionery (HTS 1704 9090) or as coffee preparations (HTS 2101 1200): tribunal held Rule 1 and Rule 3(a) govern classification, applying essential character test; evidence showed sugar is the principal ingredient imparting sweetness while coffee extract is a minor aromatic additive, so the product's essential character remains sugar confectionery - result: classified under 1704 9090. Burden of proof where department proposes a different heading: revenue failed to adduce evidence to rebut the assessee's showing (FSSAI/FSSR classification and product descriptions supporting "candy"), so departmental classification was unsustainable. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
