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...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
561 to 580 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.