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" ?
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.