Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 96136 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.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
