https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465254 HC set aside the impugned advance ruling that had classified the projector model as not falling under automatic data processing systems and, consequently, not eligible for exemption under CTI 85286200. Observing that the Authority itself sought remand in light of a subsequent ruling in a comparable matter, HC quashed the order dated 10.07.2024 and remanded the matter to the Advance Ruling Authority for de novo consideration, directing grant of personal hearing with prior notice. The petition was disposed of accordingly. en-us Tue, 01 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Dec 2025 20:19:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465254 HC set aside the impugned advance ruling that had classified the projector model as not falling under automatic data processing systems and, consequently, not eligible for exemption under CTI 85286200. Observing that the Authority itself sought remand in light of a subsequent ruling in a comparable matter, HC quashed the order dated 10.07.2024 and remanded the matter to the Advance Ruling Authority for de novo consideration, directing grant of personal hearing with prior notice. The petition was disposed of accordingly. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 01 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465254