Customs valuation must use comparable contemporary imports, while confiscation fines and penalties require proportionate recalculation on reassessed v...
Depositor-protection proceedings prevail over corporate insolvency, while liquidators may recover chit receivables using copies of seized company reco...
Intermediary service classification fails where overseas admission facilitation is supplied independently, preserving export treatment and small-provi...
Satellite transponder bandwidth is telecommunication, not Business Support Service; foreign non-telegraph providers triggered no service tax liability...
Commitment proceedings gain extended timelines, structured defect refiling, and automatic resumption of inquiry after the adjusted completion period e...
Centralised assessment transfer becomes unwarranted once the searched person's assessment is complete, requiring restoration to the appropriate charge...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Cold heading quality alloy steel wire in coils was held classifiable as alloy steel wire under CTH 7229 9090, not as wire rods under CTH 7227, because the imported product had undergone wire drawing and subsequent heat treatment and the department failed to produce technical evidence displacing the declared classification. On that basis, the Tribunal held that Notification No. 152/2009-Cus. remained available, so the differential duty and interest demand could not survive once the reclassification failed. Confiscation, penalties, and the extended-period invocation also failed because they were entirely based on the alleged misclassification and wrongful exemption claim, with no material showing suppression or wilful misstatement.
Cold heading quality alloy steel wire in coils was held classifiable as alloy steel wire under CTH 7229 9090, not as wire rods under CTH 7227, because the imported product had undergone wire drawing and subsequent heat treatment and the department failed to produce technical evidence displacing the declared classification. On that basis, the Tribunal held that Notification No. 152/2009-Cus. remained available, so the differential duty and interest demand could not survive once the reclassification failed. Confiscation, penalties, and the extended-period invocation also failed because they were entirely based on the alleged misclassification and wrongful exemption claim, with no material showing suppression or wilful misstatement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
