Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Imported Extraneal Peritoneal Dialysis Solution with 7.5% Icodestrin was held correctly classifiable under CTH 9018. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court-backed classification already accepted in the appellant's own earlier case and found that the attempt to distinguish that binding precedent was untenable because the same product and classification dispute had already been examined on the relevant facts. It also noted that Delhi and Kolkata Benches had taken the same view, making the controversy no longer res integra. The contrary classification in the impugned order was rejected, the order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefits according to law.
Imported Extraneal Peritoneal Dialysis Solution with 7.5% Icodestrin was held correctly classifiable under CTH 9018. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court-backed classification already accepted in the appellant's own earlier case and found that the attempt to distinguish that binding precedent was untenable because the same product and classification dispute had already been examined on the relevant facts. It also noted that Delhi and Kolkata Benches had taken the same view, making the controversy no longer res integra. The contrary classification in the impugned order was rejected, the order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefits according to law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.