https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750904 The Madras High Court considered whether an advance ruling application was barred under Section 28-I(2)(b) of the Customs Act on the ground of prior adjudication, and held that the bar did not apply because the dispute concerned classification of a distinct imported product. It also applied the specific-over-general rule to classify Menthol Scented Supari under Chapter 21, relying on the Supplementary Note defining supari to include preparations containing betel nut and permitting menthol, and treating Chapter 8 as the broader general heading. The ruling authority's classification was upheld and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Thu, 28 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750904 The Madras High Court considered whether an advance ruling application was barred under Section 28-I(2)(b) of the Customs Act on the ground of prior adjudication, and held that the bar did not apply because the dispute concerned classification of a distinct imported product. It also applied the specific-over-general rule to classify Menthol Scented Supari under Chapter 21, relying on the Supplementary Note defining supari to include preparations containing betel nut and permitting menthol, and treating Chapter 8 as the broader general heading. The ruling authority's classification was upheld and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 28 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750904