The Authority ruled that a refined plant extract used for treating respiratory conditions qualifies as a medicament, not a vegetable extract. Classification was based on its therapeutic use and advanced processing, denying concessional duty.
The authority ruled that panels with engineered edges and contours exceed the scope of sheets under Chapter Note 10. This led to their exclusion from Heading 3921 and classification under Heading 3925.
The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by invoking Section 68 without prior approval. The assessment was quashed as legally unsustainable, and the addition was deleted.
The court held that an adjudication order passed without considering the taxpayer’s reply is unsustainable. It remitted the matter for fresh consideration with an opportunity to respond.
The Court held that a single show cause notice covering multiple assessment years is not legally sustainable. Authorities were permitted to issue separate notices for each year.
The ruling highlights that ignoring a taxpayer’s additional reply and request for hearing renders the order unsustainable. The case was remanded for reconsideration after proper opportunity of hearing.
The court held that the revised 18% GST rate is applicable, but deferred recovery of the 6% differential tax as reimbursement from government authorities was pending.
The tribunal held that failure to consider relevant documents denied proper adjudication. It set aside the orders and allowed fresh examination of compliance evidence.
The decision underscores that failure to follow the prescribed valuation procedure under section 50C leads to invalidation of additions. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee due to lack of proper DVO reference.
The tribunal held that rental income cannot be taxed as business income when the assessee has diverse business objects. It directed reassessment under the correct income head.
