Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Imported blood glucose meters and similar diagnostic instruments were held classifiable under Heading 90.27 as instruments for chemical analysis, rather than under the more general medical instruments entry in Heading 90.18. The Tribunal applied the specific-over-general classification principle, followed its earlier view in Bayer Pharmaceuticals and Abbott Healthcare, and noted that view stood affirmed by the Supreme Court. On that basis, the goods were correctly classified under CTI 90278090 and the exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. was available. The reclassification in the impugned order was rejected, and the differential duty demand and penalty were set aside.
Imported blood glucose meters and similar diagnostic instruments were held classifiable under Heading 90.27 as instruments for chemical analysis, rather than under the more general medical instruments entry in Heading 90.18. The Tribunal applied the specific-over-general classification principle, followed its earlier view in Bayer Pharmaceuticals and Abbott Healthcare, and noted that view stood affirmed by the Supreme Court. On that basis, the goods were correctly classified under CTI 90278090 and the exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. was available. The reclassification in the impugned order was rejected, and the differential duty demand and penalty were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.