CAAR Delhi holds that the R&S® CMA180 Radio Test Set, designed for testing two-way radios and communication systems, is “specially designed for telecommunications” and must be classified under CTI 9030 40 00, rejecting the department’s claim for general-purpose classification.
Rohde & Schwarz India sought an Advance Ruling on classifying the PVT 360A Performance Vector Tester under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 9030 40 00 (specially designed for telecommunications) for nil Basic Customs Duty (BCD), instead of the residual CTI 9030 89 90 (other instruments).
CAAR, Mumbai, ruled that Thermal Printer Ribbons are essential parts of thermal printers and classifiable under CTH 8443 99 59, rejecting classification under Heading 9612 meant for inked ribbons.
CAAR Mumbai held that VitalArmor Ca M10, a milk-derived mineral concentrate, is a dietary supplement classifiable under Heading 2106 90 99, rejecting its classification as a chemical compound or whey product.
Bombay HC stayed DGFT’s notification changing tariff heading of roasted areca nuts, holding that only Central Government can amend customs classifications under Section 11A.
The Guwahati HC granted anticipatory bail to a man accused in a Rs. 199.31 Cr fake ITC conspiracy, ruling that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as the main accused was already out on default bail.
CESTAT Mumbai held that refund claims under Section 27 cannot invoke extended limitation if the bill of entry was assessed under Section 17 and not provisionally under Section 18 of the Customs Act.
Delhi HC rules that Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act does not bar an unregistered firm from filing a writ petition to enforce statutory rights, upholding the maintainability of a GST challenge.
Ordering compliance with Section 67(3) and (5) of CGST Act, Court held that seized devices must either be returned if not relied upon, or data copies must be furnished to taxpayer in presence of officials.
MP HC dismissed a second writ petition filed by a cigarette manufacturer seeking documents already covered by earlier court orders, holding it was an abuse of process to stall GST adjudication and imposed ₹2 lakh as costs.
