Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Search

We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Search

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

CESTAT ruled Apatite (Ground) Calcium Phosphate = CTH 2510 NOT CTH 2835. Overseas supplier Global Ceramics involved.

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The CESTAT, an Appellate Tribunal, addressed the issue of reclassification of imported goods, specifically Apatite (Ground) Calcium Phosphate, under CTH 25102030 or CTH 28352690. Relying on a previous decision involving a similar importer, it was held that the goods should be classified under CTH 2510 as they met the criteria of natural Calcium Phosphate or Apatite Calcium Phosphate. The Tribunal analyzed Tariff entries and HSN Explanatory Notes to reach this conclusion. Despite the lack of retesting, the involvement of the same overseas supplier supported the classification decision. As a result, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.....