Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of CESTAT held that air filter elements imported by the appellant were correctly classified under constituent material headings rather than as filter parts under CTI 84219900 from July 2013 onwards, following Board's clarification circular dated 27.06.2013. The tribunal found no suppression of facts or mis-declaration by the appellant, who had filed all requisite import documents including invoices, catalogues, and technical specifications. Consequently, the invocation of extended limitation period for differential duty demand relating to pre-July 2013 imports was deemed unjustified. The impugned order was modified to confirm classification per constituent material attracting BCD from July 2013, while setting aside differential duty demand with extended limitation, interest, and penalty. Appeal allowed partly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
