Ruling passed by Authority for Advance Rulings Customs , Central Excise & Service Tax. The Authority for Advance Rulings consists of a Chairman who is a retired Judge of the Supreme court and two members of the rank of Additional Secretary to the Government of India, one each from the Indian Revenue Service and the Indian Legal Service.
Goods and Services Tax : Scenario-wise analysis of GST on business canteen services covering ITC, employee recovery, contractor supply, and statutory oblig...
Goods and Services Tax : The ruling examines the composition of lime products and holds that impurities of 10–15% place them under Heading 2522. The Auth...
Goods and Services Tax : Gujarat AAAR rules ITC from one business can offset GST on unrelated output supplies under a single registration, emphasizing fung...
Goods and Services Tax : जीएसटी के तहत एडवांस रूलिंग (AAR) की प्रक्रिया, प्रा...
CA, CS, CMA : Stay informed on India's latest regulatory changes from June 16-22, 2025. This summary covers Income Tax exemptions, GST amendment...
Goods and Services Tax : New functionality to search for GST Advance Ruling Orders issued by Authority / Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling on GST Por...
Goods and Services Tax : Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) constituted under the provisions of a SGST/ UTGST Act, in terms of the provisions of Section 96...
Goods and Services Tax : Odisha AAR held that questions relating to refund of accumulated ITC under Section 54(3) are not maintainable under the advance ru...
Custom Duty : CAAR classified complete prosthetic joints as artificial joints and held the imported implants ineligible for exemption under Noti...
Custom Duty : CAAR held ITC (HS) code matching is not mandatory for DFIA imports if goods match DFIA description and satisfy Notification 25/202...
Custom Duty : CAAR ruled that matching ITC (HS) codes is unnecessary if imported goods match the DFIA description and comply with quantity and v...
Custom Duty : CAAR held that exported resultant goods qualify for proportionate duty remission under the MOOWR framework despite domestic sale o...
Goods and Services Tax : Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Authority makes changes in its lineup, appointing Shri. Ajaykumar Vaman Bonde as a member of Ad...
Goods and Services Tax : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan has been appointed as member of Maharashtra Advance Ruling Authority in the place of Mr. Rajiv Magoo. FINANCE DEP...
Goods and Services Tax : Governor of Himachal Pradesh, in supersession of this department’s notification of even No. dated 14.09.2020, published in the e...
Goods and Services Tax : Governor of Delhi under Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is pleased to reconstitute the Delhi Authority for Advance Ruling...
Goods and Services Tax : Shri. Rajiv Magoo, Joint Commissioner of Central Tax has been appointed as member of Maharashtra GST Advance Ruling Committee in t...
The advance ruling held that phosphatidylserine derived from soy lecithin qualifies as a phosphoaminolipid under Heading 2923. The product was classified under CTI 2923 2090 based on its chemical structure and composition.
It was held that EV components imported separately and requiring substantial manufacturing in India cannot be treated as vehicle kits. The ruling denied eligibility for concessional customs duty on such imports.
The dispute concerned whether interior wall panels were builders ware or plastic sheets. The authority ruled they remain classifiable under heading 3921, confirming decorative panels do not become structural elements.
The authority examined whether decorative plastic wall panels are builders’ ware or plastic sheets. It held that panels retaining sheet character with in-line extrusion profiles fall under CTH 3921, not residual CTH 3925.
The ruling confirms that alloys are classified by the metal predominating by weight. Since copper predominated, the brass rods were classified under Chapter 74 as copper alloy rods.
The issue concerned tariff classification of a rotor assembly, but the application was withdrawn before any ruling was issued. The authority permitted withdrawal and disposed of the case without examining the merits.
The Authority held that LED drivers fall under CTH 8504 40 90 since their essential role is electrical energy conversion and regulation, aligning with static converters rather than lighting parts.
The authority rejected the argument that interlocking wall panels are structural building components. It ruled that decorative PVC panels lack load-bearing function and remain classifiable as sheets under heading 3921.
The ruling holds that decorative PVC, PU and PS wall panels retain their character as plastic sheets under CTH 3921. Classification as builders’ ware under CTH 3925 was rejected due to lack of structural function.
An application seeking classification clarity was withdrawn after confirmation that customs proceedings on the same issue were underway. The ruling reiterates the procedural bar on advance rulings in such cases.
