Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
Transfer-pricing benchmarking and capital-receipt principles sustained taxpayer relief, while unsupported property-advance write-offs remained disallo...
Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1121 to 1140 of 96174 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.