The authority held that an automated locker system is classifiable under CTH 8303 as its essential function is secure storage of valuables. The ruling clarifies that automation features do not override the primary character of lockers.
The authority refused to admit an advance ruling application as the classification of roasted areca nuts had already been decided by a High Court. The ruling highlights the statutory bar under Section 28-I(2) when issues are previously adjudicated.
The authority declined to rule on tariff classification as a similar matter was pending before the High Court. It held that Section 28-I bars decisions in such cases. The applicant may reapply after final adjudication.
The Court examined whether ITC can be denied when the supplier fails to deposit tax. It upheld the provision, ruling that ITC depends on actual tax payment to the Government. The key takeaway is that purchaser compliance alone is insufficient without supplier tax remittance.
The authority examined whether automatic service charges violate consumer rights. It ruled that default billing of such charges is coercive and constitutes an unfair trade practice. The case reinforces that service charges must remain voluntary.
The Tribunal remanded the case after finding that ITC reversals on unsold inventory were not adequately examined. It directed fresh investigation to verify the impact on profiteering calculations and ensure proper assessment.
The tribunal held that no late fee under Section 234E can be imposed for periods prior to 1 June 2015 due to absence of enabling provisions in Section 200A. The levy was deleted following consistent judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that dismissal of appeal solely on limitation without considering bona fide reasons was unjustified. It restored the matter for adjudication on merits, emphasizing a liberal approach.
The Court held that combining multiple financial years in a single show cause notice violates the CGST Act scheme. It quashed the notice and allowed fresh issuance as per law.
The tribunal held that penalties cannot be imposed without direct evidence connecting the appellant to alleged overvalued exports. Mere suspicion and assumptions were found insufficient.
