Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
901 to 920 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.