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 allowed appellant's appeal by remand in customs classification dispute. Appellant imported goods classified under tariff item 8501 6410, seeking exemption under N/N. 12/2012-Central Excise for non-conventional energy devices. Customs authorities reclassified goods under residuary category 8502 3990 and denied exemption benefit, imposing penalties under sections 111 and 112 of Customs Act, 1962. CESTAT held that neither notification nor statute excluded goods under tariff items 8501 or 8502 from exemption eligibility. Since imported goods were admittedly not internal combustion piston engines, authorities failed to examine whether goods qualified as non-conventional energy devices or systems under the notification. Due to deficient adjudication lacking proper determination of goods' characteristics for exemption coverage, CESTAT set aside impugned order and remanded matter to original authority for fresh decision after hearing appellant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
