The ruling holds that exemption under Notification 134/94-Cus. cannot be combined with MOOWR benefits, as both schemes operate separately. Only re-export-based repair activities qualify for exemption.
CAAR held that lithium-ion cells used as replacements, scrapped during production, or found defective before use do not qualify as being used in manufacture. Such cells are treated as unutilized or defective and attract duty and interest under IGCR Rules.
CAAR held that crude rapeseed and canola oil meet statutory definition of low erucic acid oil and must be classified under 1514 11 20. It also confirmed a CEPA duty rate of 8% for 2025–26.
The case examines whether rig components leased from an FTWZ to a DTA unit qualify for IGST exemption under Serial No. 557B. The ruling focuses on conditions for claiming the exemption and the treatment of SEZ-based leasing transactions.
CAAR held that power recliners used exclusively in motor vehicle seats fall under Heading 9401, as seat parts are more specifically classified there than under general motor-vehicle parts. The key takeaway is that specific tariff entries prevail over general ones.
held that a rice-koji beverage lacking malt cannot be classified as beer under Heading 2203. Ruling places product under Heading 2206 as an other fermented beverage.
The case examines whether various plastic and metal support components qualify as mechanical items eligible for reduced BCD under an amended exemption notification. The authority evaluates the manufacturing processes and functional characteristics of the parts to determine eligibility.
The ruling holds that importing all components of an LED monitor in unassembled form qualifies as importing the finished monitor under Rule 2(a), requiring classification under CTI 85285200. Packaging materials must be classified separately.
The authority declined to classify incomplete indoor and outdoor AC units after finding the same issue was already before the Appellate Tribunal. The key takeaway is that advance rulings cannot proceed when identical questions remain under adjudication.
The authority refused to rule on the classification of imported BEV components because an identical issue was already pending before the Bombay High Court. The key takeaway is that advance rulings cannot be issued when the same question is under judicial consideration.
