https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778799 CESTAT MUMBAI (AT) allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the CBEC circular validly regularized treatment of "auxiliary equipment" under the Project Import Regulations, 1986. The Tribunal treated prior SC and appellate decisions as distinguishing auxiliary equipment from project assets and concluded that the circular's clarification falls within administrative competence; a condition restricting transferability to registered projects is not contained in the Regulations themselves, so the challenged restriction could not be sustained. en-us Fri, 19 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Sep 2025 08:29:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778799 CESTAT MUMBAI (AT) allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the CBEC circular validly regularized treatment of "auxiliary equipment" under the Project Import Regulations, 1986. The Tribunal treated prior SC and appellate decisions as distinguishing auxiliary equipment from project assets and concluded that the circular's clarification falls within administrative competence; a condition restricting transferability to registered projects is not contained in the Regulations themselves, so the challenged restriction could not be sustained. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 19 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778799