Karnataka HC: A Neighbour Cannot be Charged With Matrimonial Cruelty under Section 498A IPC  ||  Revisional Power U/S 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act is Supervisory; HC Cannot Revisit Facts  ||  Poverty Cannot Bar Parole; Rajasthan HC Waives Surety For Indigent Life Convict, Sets Guidelines  ||  Delhi High Court: Late Payment of TDS Does Not Absolve Criminal Liability under the Income Tax Act  ||  NCLT Kochi: Avoidance Provisions under Insolvency Code Aim to Restore, Not Punish, Parties  ||  Bombay High Court: In IBC Cases, High Courts Lack Parallel Contempt Jurisdiction over the NCLT  ||  Supreme Court: Concluded Auction Cannot Be Cancelled Merely To Invite Higher Bids at a Later Stage  ||  SC: In Customs Classification, Statutory Tariff Headings and HSN Notes Prevail over Common Parlance  ||  SC: Under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, Notice U/S 10(5) Must be Served on the Person in Possession  ||  Supreme Court: Only Courts May Condone Delay; Tribunals Lack Power Unless Statute Allows    

SC: 'Common Parlance' Test Applicable Only if Tariff Entry Classifiable in More Than One Head - (04 May 2020)

EXCISE

Supreme Court has dismissed the Delhi Central Excise Commissioner's appeals against the 2008 decision of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal holding that "car matting" would be chargeable to duty at 8% under the heading "Carpets and Other Textile Floor Coverings", stating that the common parlance test would only apply if tariff entry is classifiable in more than one head.

Tags : SUPREME COURT   COMMON PARLANCE TEST  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved