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...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
Reformate imported by the appellant was held classifiable under CTI 2707 50 00, not 2710 12 19, because it was identical to the product considered in an earlier case that had already been affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal applied that earlier ruling as binding, rejected the Revenue's attempt to distinguish the present matter on the basis of different adjudication findings, and treated the classification question as closed for identical imports. Relying on the doctrine of merger and the principle in Kunhayammed, it held that the same dispute could not be reopened and set aside the impugned order.
Reformate imported by the appellant was held classifiable under CTI 2707 50 00, not 2710 12 19, because it was identical to the product considered in an earlier case that had already been affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal applied that earlier ruling as binding, rejected the Revenue's attempt to distinguish the present matter on the basis of different adjudication findings, and treated the classification question as closed for identical imports. Relying on the doctrine of merger and the principle in Kunhayammed, it held that the same dispute could not be reopened and set aside the impugned order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
