Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
901 to 920 of 96257 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.