Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1141 to 1160 of 96406 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.