Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
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 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
