Minimum Import Price restrictions for Black Pepper, Areca-nuts and Apples upheld; procedural laying failure not fatal, notifications to be placed befo...
Transaction value between related persons requires market-equivalent pricing; importer must prove declared value mirrors ordinary international trade ...
Classification of exported insecticides under export tariff affirmed; reclassification and related penalties set aside and MEIS scrip jurisdiction rec...
Misclassification between copra and dry coconut: customs recovery and re-valuation quashed for lack of prior licensing-authority invalidation, appeals...
Goods bearing a common pictorial representation and packaging features were held to fall within the amended definition of brand name, but the exemption under Serial Nos. 73 and 74 of Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate), as amended, remained available because the petitioner had filed the prescribed affidavit voluntarily foregoing any actionable claim or enforceable right over the brand name and the department had treated the goods as unbranded. The corporate name printed on the package, being required under food and legal metrology laws, could not by itself defeat the exemption. The invocation of the extended period under Section 74 also failed, as the relevant facts were already disclosed to the department; only the normal period under Section 73 could apply. The issue of bunching multiple tax periods in one notice was left open.
Goods bearing a common pictorial representation and packaging features were held to fall within the amended definition of brand name, but the exemption under Serial Nos. 73 and 74 of Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate), as amended, remained available because the petitioner had filed the prescribed affidavit voluntarily foregoing any actionable claim or enforceable right over the brand name and the department had treated the goods as unbranded. The corporate name printed on the package, being required under food and legal metrology laws, could not by itself defeat the exemption. The invocation of the extended period under Section 74 also failed, as the relevant facts were already disclosed to the department; only the normal period under Section 73 could apply. The issue of bunching multiple tax periods in one notice was left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
