Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
CESTAT ruled on classification disputes for various mobile phone components. The Tribunal held that Receivers should be classified under CTH 85177090 as phone parts, not standalone audio equipment under CTH 8518. Microphones were denied exemption under N/N. 57/2017-Cus. Connectors qualified for exemption benefits and were classified under CTH 85369090. Various covers and assemblies (Rear Cover, Front Housing, Camera Lens etc.) were deemed eligible for exemption under N/N. 50/2017 and classified under CTH 85177090 as cellular phone parts. The Tribunal emphasized that parts integral to phone functionality should be classified as phone components rather than standalone devices. Extended period limitations were rejected where genuine interpretative issues existed, restricting demands to normal period with applicable interest.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.