The Tribunal held that failure to intimate the Superintendent under Rule 6(3A) does not invalidate proportionate credit reversal. It clarified that such intimation is procedural and not a substantive condition.
The SC declined to interfere with the High Courts order granting IGST refund despite return filing error. It upheld that refund cannot be denied when export and tax payment are undisputed.
The Court held that refund cannot be denied due to clerical errors in GST returns when export and IGST payment are undisputed. It directed refund with interest under Rule 96.
The High Court held that goods transported without an e-way bill and supported by an invalid invoice from a suspended supplier cannot be released. The absence of valid documents justified detention and penalty.
The Tribunal found that effective control and possession of tanks rested with customers, excluding the transaction from supply of tangible goods service. The demand was set aside accordingly.
The Court upheld acquittal after finding that the accused was given an impermissible third option during search. It ruled that non-compliance with Section 50 vitiated the trial and made recovery unreliable.
The Court addressed whether appeals could proceed despite low tax effect. It held that since Rule 8(3A) was already struck down and not in issue, appeals were not maintainable.
The authority held that bulk drugs, including APIs, fall within the definition of drugs under applicable laws. Consequently, IGST at 5% applies under the specific rate notification.
In re FMC India Private Limited (CAAR Mumbai) The Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR), Mumbai, examined an application filed by FMC India Private Limited seeking classification of two chemicals—Carbosulfan Technical and Clomazone Technical—under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, following amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2025. The applicant contended that these chemicals, being separate […]
The issue involved classification of EV parts under customs tariff. The Authority refused to issue a ruling as a similar matter was already pending before the High Court, rendering the application non-maintainable.
