Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
Cross country pipeline classification and ITC entitlement: pipelines outside factory treated as immovable, ITC disallowed under Section 17 restriction...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6261 to 6280 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Imported draping tubes were treated as window curtain parts under Chapter 83 because the specific use-based description for articles of general use prevailed over the more generic tube-and-pipe description. The Tribunal also held that the declared classification could not be displaced merely on cross-sectional similarity, and the reclassification to Chapter 73 was unsustainable. BIS-based prohibition was inapplicable because the relevant tariff item was not covered by the quality control order, so confiscation under section 111(d) failed. The rejection of transaction value also failed because the valuation rules were not applied sequentially and a chartered engineer had no statutory role in that substitution. The impugned order was set aside.
Imported draping tubes were treated as window curtain parts under Chapter 83 because the specific use-based description for articles of general use prevailed over the more generic tube-and-pipe description. The Tribunal also held that the declared classification could not be displaced merely on cross-sectional similarity, and the reclassification to Chapter 73 was unsustainable. BIS-based prohibition was inapplicable because the relevant tariff item was not covered by the quality control order, so confiscation under section 111(d) failed. The rejection of transaction value also failed because the valuation rules were not applied sequentially and a chartered engineer had no statutory role in that substitution. The impugned order was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.