Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
