The authority refused to entertain the application as the classification of provisionally preserved areca nuts was already decided by the High Court. It held that settled judicial precedent bars fresh rulings on identical issues.
The ruling examines whether imported battery components qualify as parts based on their essential role. It clarifies that items solely used in batteries can be classified under parts of electric accumulators.
The AAAR held that GST paid on lease rentals for land used to construct a factory is not eligible for ITC. It ruled that Section 17(5)(d) clearly blocks such credit irrespective of timing or usage stage.
The authority held that a foam production line qualifies as an injection moulding machine due to its integrated process of injecting and forming polymer products. Residual classifications were rejected.
The issue involved classification of an advanced brake system integrating multiple technologies. The authority ruled that it is not a part because braking can occur without it. The decision clarifies the importance of the essentiality test in classification.
Applying classification rules, the authority held that a specific heading for communication devices prevails over general classification as vehicle parts. This confirmed classification under 8517.
The ruling addressed whether poultry feed premixes fall under vitamins or animal feed classification. It held that products designed for specific use in animal feeding, containing carriers and additives, are classifiable under Heading 2309, not 2936.
The case addresses withdrawal of an advance ruling request before its pronouncement. The authority permitted withdrawal under Regulation 20, leaving the classification and duty issues undecided.
The authority analysed whether an industrial plant is movable or immovable. It held that the plant, installed for long-term use and not marketable as a whole, is immovable property. Consequently, ITC on related inputs was denied.
The applicant sought clarity on refund eligibility after filing NIL claims but later withdrew the application citing procedural confusion. The authority disposed of the matter without ruling on merits.
