https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783535 The dominant issue was whether an advance ruling could be given on classification of "roasted areca nuts" under the Customs Tariff. Because a binding HC judgment had already settled the classification and, by proviso (b) to s. 281(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, the AAR lacks authority to rule where the question is covered by such precedent, it declined to pronounce any ruling on classification. The second issue was eligibility for concessional BCD under Sr. No. 172 of Notn. No. 46/2011-Cus. Since the exemption is conditional upon proof of originating status under the ASEAN-India Origin Rules, 2009 and CAROTAR, 2020 to the satisfaction of the proper officer, the AAR held the benefit is available only on such proof. en-us Tue, 30 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Dec 2025 08:01:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783535 The dominant issue was whether an advance ruling could be given on classification of "roasted areca nuts" under the Customs Tariff. Because a binding HC judgment had already settled the classification and, by proviso (b) to s. 281(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, the AAR lacks authority to rule where the question is covered by such precedent, it declined to pronounce any ruling on classification. The second issue was eligibility for concessional BCD under Sr. No. 172 of Notn. No. 46/2011-Cus. Since the exemption is conditional upon proof of originating status under the ASEAN-India Origin Rules, 2009 and CAROTAR, 2020 to the satisfaction of the proper officer, the AAR held the benefit is available only on such proof. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 30 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783535