https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779604 HC held that prior rulings support classifying glucometers under Heading 9027 and that the adjudicating authority failed to consider these binding precedents. Finding a strong prima facie case and noting that the impugned order would place the appellant at a competitive disadvantage by imposing a higher duty rate than competitors, HC granted interim relief. Balancing this with revenue interests, HC stayed the operation of the impugned advance ruling order dated 02.01.2025 passed by Respondent No. 3 until final disposal of the appeal, leaving the ultimate question of classification and duty liability to be decided at the final hearing. en-us Wed, 01 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Nov 2025 12:02:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779604 HC held that prior rulings support classifying glucometers under Heading 9027 and that the adjudicating authority failed to consider these binding precedents. Finding a strong prima facie case and noting that the impugned order would place the appellant at a competitive disadvantage by imposing a higher duty rate than competitors, HC granted interim relief. Balancing this with revenue interests, HC stayed the operation of the impugned advance ruling order dated 02.01.2025 passed by Respondent No. 3 until final disposal of the appeal, leaving the ultimate question of classification and duty liability to be decided at the final hearing. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 01 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779604