Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and held that the impugned bullet-proof special purpose vehicles are properly classifiable under tariff item 8705 90 00 (special-purpose armoured vehicles) and not under heading 8710. The Tribunal found the vehicles' primary purpose is rendition of defence/policing services rather than carriage of persons or goods, thus excluding them from headings for passenger vehicles; valuation under Rule 10A was not sustained. The decision followed the Bench's earlier ruling in the appellant's favour, and with no stay or appellate challenge by Revenue on record, the Tribunal declined to depart from that precedent and granted relief to the Appellant.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and held that the impugned bullet-proof special purpose vehicles are properly classifiable under tariff item 8705 90 00 (special-purpose armoured vehicles) and not under heading 8710. The Tribunal found the vehicles' primary purpose is rendition of defence/policing services rather than carriage of persons or goods, thus excluding them from headings for passenger vehicles; valuation under Rule 10A was not sustained. The decision followed the Bench's earlier ruling in the appellant's favour, and with no stay or appellate challenge by Revenue on record, the Tribunal declined to depart from that precedent and granted relief to the Appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.