Just a moment...
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether interim stay of the impugned orders should be granted, and whether the matter concerning exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. should be referred to the Larger Bench.
Analysis: The Tribunal accepted the respondents' contention that the notification turns on the machine's capacity to lay bituminous pavement of 7 metres and above, not on the physical width of the equipment alone. On the material placed, the catalogue indicated a maximum pave width of 10 metres, supporting the view that the machine met the notification requirement. However, since a Coordinate Bench had taken a different view in an earlier matter, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to seek determination by a Larger Bench on the exemption question.
Conclusion: Interim stay of the impugned orders was declined, and the exemption issue was directed to be placed before the Larger Bench for decision.