The High Court held that contradictory portal communications and missing rejection orders cannot defeat a refund claim. The original refund application was ordered to be honoured with interest.
The case involved a penalty for alleged non-disclosure of a foreign bank account. The Tribunal held that ambiguity regarding linked currency accounts required fresh verification before sustaining the penalty.
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The issue concerned tariff classification of a rotor assembly, but the application was withdrawn before any ruling was issued.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 court held that appeals filed beyond the three-month period plus one-month condonable window under Section 107 cannot be entertained. The ruling reinforces strict adherence to limitation under the CGST Act.
Following the High Court’s ruling on limitation, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP as withdrawn. The decision leaves intact the finding that delayed GST appeals are not maintainable.
The court ruled that a petitioner cannot re-agitate merits after appeal and writ remedies fail on limitation. Statutory timelines under GST were strictly enforced.
