Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Imported goods declared as apatite calcium phosphate were held classifiable under CTI 2835 26 90, because Chapter 25 covers only natural products in crude form or products processed merely mechanically or physically, while the evidence showed calcination and chemical additions. Documentary material, including supplier emails and the importer's own conduct in seeking removal of calcination references, established deliberate misdescription; the differential duty with interest was therefore upheld. Since the goods did not match the Bills of Entry, confiscation under section 111(m) and redemption fine were sustained. Intentional misclassification to evade duty attracted penalty under section 114A, and the penalties on the director and manager were also upheld for manipulating and assisting in false customs documentation.
Imported goods declared as apatite calcium phosphate were held classifiable under CTI 2835 26 90, because Chapter 25 covers only natural products in crude form or products processed merely mechanically or physically, while the evidence showed calcination and chemical additions. Documentary material, including supplier emails and the importer's own conduct in seeking removal of calcination references, established deliberate misdescription; the differential duty with interest was therefore upheld. Since the goods did not match the Bills of Entry, confiscation under section 111(m) and redemption fine were sustained. Intentional misclassification to evade duty attracted penalty under section 114A, and the penalties on the director and manager were also upheld for manipulating and assisting in false customs documentation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
