Stock-in-trade transfer taxability follows possession and consideration, not later conveyance registration, limiting deemed-value provisions to the ac...
Alternative statutory remedy under GST bars writ challenge where classification, notice variance, and hearing disputes require factual appellate revie...
Duplicate PAN cancellation timeframe requires prior administrative representation before judicial intervention, ensuring a time-bound decision on the ...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4886 
