Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
The Tribunal held that identical Electronic Power Steering ECU goods were governed by its earlier final order in the appellant's own case, and that binding coordinate-bench discipline required the same classification result because the earlier order had not been stayed despite challenge. It distinguished the later Chennai Bench view, noting that decision did not consider the appellant's prior case and turned on different facts. On that basis, EPS-ECU remained classifiable under CTI 8708 94 00 and not under CTI 9032 90 00. The impugned classification was upheld and the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that identical Electronic Power Steering ECU goods were governed by its earlier final order in the appellant's own case, and that binding coordinate-bench discipline required the same classification result because the earlier order had not been stayed despite challenge. It distinguished the later Chennai Bench view, noting that decision did not consider the appellant's prior case and turned on different facts. On that basis, EPS-ECU remained classifiable under CTI 8708 94 00 and not under CTI 9032 90 00. The impugned classification was upheld and the appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
