Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
Condonation of delay in filing GSTR-3B returns and entitlement to Section 62 benefit results in withdrawal of assessments and revocation of attachment...
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.