Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Solar photovoltaic modules with bypass diodes classified under CTH 8541 not CTH 8501</h1> <h3>M/s SAEL Ltd., M/s Lohia Developers India Private Limited and M/s Prayatna Developers Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner, Customs (Preventive), Lucknow</h3> M/s SAEL Ltd., M/s Lohia Developers India Private Limited and M/s Prayatna Developers Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner, Customs (Preventive), Lucknow - TMI Issues Involved:1. Classification of imported 'Poly Crystalline Silicon (C-Si), Solar Photovoltaic Modules' under CTH 85414011 versus CTH 8501.2. Validity and conclusiveness of the IIT Kanpur Test Report.3. Burden of proof for classification and reliance on expert opinions.4. Consistency in classification decisions across different jurisdictions.5. Issuance of Show Cause Notice (SCN) before finalization of provisional assessment.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of Imported Solar Modules:The central issue in the appeals was the classification of 'Poly Crystalline Silicon (C-Si), Solar Photovoltaic Modules' (Solar Modules) imported by the Appellant. The Appellant classified the modules under CTH 85414011, claiming exemption from customs duty under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. The Customs Department, however, proposed reclassification under CTH 8501, which would negate the exemption. The classification hinged on whether the solar modules were equipped with elements that supply power directly to an external load. The Tribunal found that the solar modules contained bypass diodes, which do not supply power directly to an external load, thus supporting classification under CTH 8541 as per the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) and CBEC clarifications.2. Validity and Conclusiveness of the IIT Kanpur Test Report:The Customs Department relied on a test report from IIT Kanpur, which was inconclusive regarding the presence of blocking diodes, crucial for classification under CTH 8501. The Tribunal noted that IIT Kanpur admitted its inability to test for blocking diodes. The report was deemed insufficient to support the Department's classification claim, as it did not conclusively establish that the modules were capable of supplying power directly to an external load.3. Burden of Proof for Classification and Reliance on Expert Opinions:The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof for reclassification lies with the Department. The Appellant provided a Chartered Engineer's Certificate and other evidence indicating the absence of blocking diodes, which was not adequately countered by the Department. The Tribunal criticized the Adjudicating Authority for dismissing expert opinions without justification, highlighting the necessity for the Department to provide conclusive evidence when challenging an assessee's declared classification.4. Consistency in Classification Decisions Across Different Jurisdictions:The Tribunal noted that similar solar modules imported by a sister concern of the Appellant were classified under CTH 8541 by another Commissionerate, a decision accepted by the Department. The Tribunal stressed the need for uniformity in classification decisions, citing Supreme Court precedents that prohibit contradictory stances by the Department on identical issues. The Tribunal found the Department's contrary position in the present case unjustifiable.5. Issuance of Show Cause Notice Before Finalization of Provisional Assessment:The Appellant argued that the SCN was issued prematurely, as the provisional assessment had not been finalized. Although the Tribunal did not delve deeply into this procedural argument, it acknowledged the settled legal position that demands under Section 28 should follow the finalization of assessments. However, the Tribunal's decision on the merits rendered this issue moot.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the Solar Modules imported by the Appellant were correctly classifiable under CTH 8541, thereby entitling the Appellant to the claimed customs duty exemption. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed, granting consequential relief to the Appellant.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found