Scope of intermediary status for data hosting services: tribunal finds provider not intermediary, services exported and not taxable, limited remand on...
CENVAT credit availability after omission of Rule 12B in textiles confirmed; late addendum to SCN introducing new grounds held time-barred and invalid...
Export of Wheat Flour and related products subject to online allocation, eligibility criteria, non-transferable six-month authorisations and reporting...
Straight-line lease rental accounting change results in penalty quashed where disclosed accounts and bona fide arguable accounting interpretation exis...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7241 to 7260 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Activity trackers/fitness bands were held classifiable under CTI 8517 6290 because their principal function extended beyond pedometer-like step counting and included tracking and communication-linked fitness outputs through a paired application; the residual tariff entry was therefore applied and the classification under CTI 9029 1090 was rejected. The extended period of limitation was not available because the classification issue was already within departmental knowledge, the goods had been examined under customs control, and no suppression, wilful misstatement, collusion or fraud was shown. Only differential duty with applicable interest for the normal period was sustained. Alleged DGFT labelling non-compliance did not justify confiscation, redemption fine or penalty.
Activity trackers/fitness bands were held classifiable under CTI 8517 6290 because their principal function extended beyond pedometer-like step counting and included tracking and communication-linked fitness outputs through a paired application; the residual tariff entry was therefore applied and the classification under CTI 9029 1090 was rejected. The extended period of limitation was not available because the classification issue was already within departmental knowledge, the goods had been examined under customs control, and no suppression, wilful misstatement, collusion or fraud was shown. Only differential duty with applicable interest for the normal period was sustained. Alleged DGFT labelling non-compliance did not justify confiscation, redemption fine or penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.