Faceless assessment notice must cover specific prejudicial variations; unexplained final additions without notice breach section 144B and natural just...
Reformate imported by the appellant was held classifiable under CTI 2707 50 00, not 2710 12 19, because it was identical to the product considered in an earlier case that had already been affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal applied that earlier ruling as binding, rejected the Revenue's attempt to distinguish the present matter on the basis of different adjudication findings, and treated the classification question as closed for identical imports. Relying on the doctrine of merger and the principle in Kunhayammed, it held that the same dispute could not be reopened and set aside the impugned order.
Reformate imported by the appellant was held classifiable under CTI 2707 50 00, not 2710 12 19, because it was identical to the product considered in an earlier case that had already been affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal applied that earlier ruling as binding, rejected the Revenue's attempt to distinguish the present matter on the basis of different adjudication findings, and treated the classification question as closed for identical imports. Relying on the doctrine of merger and the principle in Kunhayammed, it held that the same dispute could not be reopened and set aside the impugned order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
