<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (7) TMI 629 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794743</link>
    <description>Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation may treat incomplete, unassembled or disassembled goods as the complete article if they retain its essential character, so a CKD supply of an e-rickshaw can be classified as a finished electrically operated vehicle only where all components necessary to assemble a complete vehicle are supplied together as one identifiable kit and the documents consistently show CKD/SKD supply. The earlier view that a motor plus any three identified components was enough was disapproved because that test did not arise from the rule, tariff entry or GST notification. On the record, the supplier dealt in individual parts, so the goods remained classifiable as parts and components.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 07:39:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=910991" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 629 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, WEST BENGAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794743</link>
      <description>Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation may treat incomplete, unassembled or disassembled goods as the complete article if they retain its essential character, so a CKD supply of an e-rickshaw can be classified as a finished electrically operated vehicle only where all components necessary to assemble a complete vehicle are supplied together as one identifiable kit and the documents consistently show CKD/SKD supply. The earlier view that a motor plus any three identified components was enough was disapproved because that test did not arise from the rule, tariff entry or GST notification. On the record, the supplier dealt in individual parts, so the goods remained classifiable as parts and components.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794743</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>