The authority held that AMOLED display assemblies remain flat panel display modules despite having driver ICs. Since they retain their core display function and lack independent communication capability, classification under CTH 85249220 was upheld.
The ROC penalized the company for filing board resolutions after the 30-day limit. It held that statutory timelines under the Companies Act are mandatory and cannot be ignored.
The case involved classification of LFD monitors under customs law. The Authority allowed withdrawal as the request was made before any ruling. The takeaway is that applications can be withdrawn prior to adjudication.
The Authority refused to entertain the application as the classification of roasted arecanuts was already settled by a High Court judgment. It held that advance rulings cannot be issued on matters already decided.
The case involved classification of a product under customs law. The Authority allowed withdrawal as the request was made before any ruling. The takeaway is that applications can be withdrawn before adjudication.
The Tribunal held reopening valid as tangible material showed undisclosed capital gains. It ruled that execution of a registered sale deed triggers tax liability even if consideration is disputed.
Allegations of collusive bidding and tender manipulation were examined but not substantiated by evidence. The Commission held that procurement conditions were legally permissible. The key takeaway is that absence of proof of agreement defeats cartel claims.
The Commission found no prima facie violation of competition law despite allegations of arbitrary account termination. It held that enforcement of platform policies and appeal mechanisms did not amount to abuse of dominance.
The authority held that operational services were provided to a PSU under contract. As a result, exemption for healthcare services was denied and GST was held applicable.
The issue involved inability to access documents leading to ex parte assessment. The Court granted interim relief by reducing the pre-deposit amount. The takeaway is that procedural fairness can influence deposit requirements.
