The Supreme Court held that cutting, routing, and grooving Aluminum Composite Panels for building installation does not create a new product and therefore does not amount to manufacture under the Central Excise Act. The ruling also clarified that disputes on excisability fall within the Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court held that the Election Commission has constitutional authority under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the RP Act to conduct a Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The Court ruled that the Commission’s powers remain operative so long as they do not violate express statutory provisions.
A Constitution Bench held that courts can modify arbitral awards in limited situations such as correcting manifest errors and severable portions of awards. The ruling recognised an implied power under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
The Allahabad High Court held that mere uploading of an adjudication order on the GST portal does not automatically trigger limitation for filing appeals. Actual or legally recognized communication is necessary before limitation can commence.
The West Bengal AAR rejected an advance ruling application on hotel construction ITC after finding that GST enforcement proceedings on the same issue had already begun. The authority held that Section 98(2) bars admission of applications where identical questions are pending before tax authorities.
The West Bengal AAR held that PP Packing Boxes manufactured from plastic granules qualify as plastic packing articles under tariff item 39231090. The ruling also clarified the classification of lids, caps, and closures under HSN 39235090.
The West Bengal AAR ruled that laundry soap and toilet soap are separate products under GST classification. Laundry soap bars weighing less than 500 grams were held taxable at 18%.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after finding that the assessee had no knowledge of the assessment proceedings due to missed email notices. The assessment was restored for de novo adjudication.
GSTAT closed the proceedings after noting that the complainant had unconditionally withdrawn the complaint and entered into a settlement with the developer. The Tribunal also held that the matter had already been conclusively adjudicated earlier.
The Tribunal ruled that workload and assessment proceedings alone cannot justify extraordinary delay in filing an appeal. The Revenues appeal was dismissed as time-barred due to lack of convincing explanation.
