Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6541 to 6560 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Classification focused on whether products are Ayurvedic medicaments or cosmetics, applying the twin test of ingredient composition and common parlance together with statutory licensing; Tribunal found ingredients, dosages and drug licences established medicinal character and classified goods under Chapter 30, displacing the cosmetics classification. Liability was tested by manufacturer status under loan licence law: the job worker was held to be the manufacturer and pre-August 2011 demands against the principal were set aside. The appellant qualified for SSI exemption for Sept 2011-Feb 2012 and had paid duty from March 2012 after registration, so no differential duty nor penalties were imposed.
Classification focused on whether products are Ayurvedic medicaments or cosmetics, applying the twin test of ingredient composition and common parlance together with statutory licensing; Tribunal found ingredients, dosages and drug licences established medicinal character and classified goods under Chapter 30, displacing the cosmetics classification. Liability was tested by manufacturer status under loan licence law: the job worker was held to be the manufacturer and pre-August 2011 demands against the principal were set aside. The appellant qualified for SSI exemption for Sept 2011-Feb 2012 and had paid duty from March 2012 after registration, so no differential duty nor penalties were imposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.