Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
CESTAT upheld classification of the imported goods as crystalline limestone rather than marble, accepting the Geological Survey of India report as a reliable technical opinion and holding that dictionary meanings could not override expert scientific evidence. It distinguished prior marble decisions on their facts and found that the advance licence and Notification No. 203/92 exemption, which applied to marble, was correctly denied. The Tribunal also found clear misdeclaration in both description and quantity, since the goods were not as declared and excess quantity was detected on first check. Confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were therefore justified and affirmed.
CESTAT upheld classification of the imported goods as crystalline limestone rather than marble, accepting the Geological Survey of India report as a reliable technical opinion and holding that dictionary meanings could not override expert scientific evidence. It distinguished prior marble decisions on their facts and found that the advance licence and Notification No. 203/92 exemption, which applied to marble, was correctly denied. The Tribunal also found clear misdeclaration in both description and quantity, since the goods were not as declared and excess quantity was detected on first check. Confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were therefore justified and affirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.