Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Levy of additional customs duty under section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, equivalent to rubber cess under section 12 of the Rubber Act on imported natural rubber, was upheld as legally sustainable. The Tribunal noted that competing decisions had been cited, but it followed the coordinate Bench ruling in the appellant's own case, which had recently rejected the same challenge for an earlier period by relying on the Larger Bench decision in TTK-LIG Ltd. In the absence of distinguishing facts and with no operative stay or interim order from the Supreme Court, the Tribunal declined to take a different view and sustained the demand; the appeal was dismissed.
Levy of additional customs duty under section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, equivalent to rubber cess under section 12 of the Rubber Act on imported natural rubber, was upheld as legally sustainable. The Tribunal noted that competing decisions had been cited, but it followed the coordinate Bench ruling in the appellant's own case, which had recently rejected the same challenge for an earlier period by relying on the Larger Bench decision in TTK-LIG Ltd. In the absence of distinguishing facts and with no operative stay or interim order from the Supreme Court, the Tribunal declined to take a different view and sustained the demand; the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.