Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
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...
Imported multifunctional goods described as wheelchairs with a toileting facility were held classifiable by their essential character and principal function. Their design, wheels and intended use showed that they remained mobility aids for disabled persons, while the toileting feature was only ancillary; heading 9402 was inapplicable because the goods were not specialised medical furniture and performed no medical or surgical function. The Tribunal also held that exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. applied once the goods fell under Heading 8713, and no unstated exclusion could be read into the notification to deny relief for the additional toileting feature. The appellate order was upheld.
Imported multifunctional goods described as wheelchairs with a toileting facility were held classifiable by their essential character and principal function. Their design, wheels and intended use showed that they remained mobility aids for disabled persons, while the toileting feature was only ancillary; heading 9402 was inapplicable because the goods were not specialised medical furniture and performed no medical or surgical function. The Tribunal also held that exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. applied once the goods fell under Heading 8713, and no unstated exclusion could be read into the notification to deny relief for the additional toileting feature. The appellate order was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.