Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
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.