Prima facie, the HC observed that prior authoritative decisions...

Prima facie, the HC observed that prior authoritative decisions have settled the classification of glucometers in favour of the appellant's position, and that Respondent No. 3 failed to consider those precedents when issuing the impugned order dated 02.01.2025. The court noted that an advance ruling under Section 28I is binding only on the applicant and the customs authorities under Section 28J, resulting in potential competitive disadvantage to the appellant if required to discharge a higher duty. Balancing the appellant's prejudice against revenue interests given a differential duty of 2.5%, the HC granted interim relief and stayed the operation of the impugned order until final disposal of the appeal.