Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
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.