CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
The Tribunal addressed (1) overlap of jurisdiction and principle of comity: finding the earlier Commissioner's order was non-original, lacked application of mind and risked "poaching" on concurrent proceedings, the Tribunal held such order excluded further support and set it aside - outcome: Commissioner's order quashed. (2) Eligibility for refund under rule 5, CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004: the Tribunal found rejection rested on absence of a prescribed mechanism to ascertain prospective use and that no show-cause specifying deficiencies was issued, depriving the applicant of opportunity to be heard - outcome: applications restored to the original authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and procedure; appeal allowed. - CESTAT
The Tribunal addressed (1) overlap of jurisdiction and principle of comity: finding the earlier Commissioner's order was non-original, lacked application of mind and risked "poaching" on concurrent proceedings, the Tribunal held such order excluded further support and set it aside - outcome: Commissioner's order quashed. (2) Eligibility for refund under rule 5, CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004: the Tribunal found rejection rested on absence of a prescribed mechanism to ascertain prospective use and that no show-cause specifying deficiencies was issued, depriving the applicant of opportunity to be heard - outcome: applications restored to the original authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and procedure; appeal allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.