Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
