Classification of EPS-ECU as Automobile Part Upholds; CESTAT Dismisses 196 Appeals by Mitsubishi Electric Automotive India

HomeIndirect TaxesClassification of EPS-ECU as Automobile Part Upholds; CESTAT Dismisses 196 Appeals by...

Classification of EPS-ECU as Automobile Part Upholds; CESTAT Dismisses 196 Appeals by Mitsubishi Electric Automotive India

Indirect Taxes Top Stories

Published on

01/04/2026

By Mariya Paliwala

Classification of EPS-ECU as Automobile Part Upholds; CESTAT Dismisses 196 Appeals by Mitsubishi Electric Automotive India

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi has upheld the classification of Electronic Power Steering – Electronic Control Units (EPS-ECU) as automobile parts under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8708 94 00, dismissing a batch of 196 appeals filed by Mitsubishi Electric Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta…

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Mariya Paliwala https://www.jurishour.in/

Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Tags
Classification of EPS-ECU

Classification of EPS-ECU as Automobile Part Upholds; CESTAT Dismisses 196 Appeals by Mitsubishi Electric Automotive India

Membership Required

Latest articles

Daughters’ Partition Suit Can’t Be Rejected at Threshold; S. 6(5) of Hindu Succession Act Is Only a Saving Clause, Not a Bar: Supreme Court

India’s Gold Demand May Fall 10% in 2026 After Sharp Duty Hike

Can S. 122(1A) Be Invoked Against Individual Not Retaining Benefit of Transaction? Bombay HC Stays Recovery of Penalty on Director

Whether ‘3 Months’ U/s 73(10) of CGST Act Means Exactly 3 Calendar Months or 90 Days? SC Issues Notice

More like this

Daughters’ Partition Suit Can’t Be Rejected at Threshold; S. 6(5) of Hindu Succession Act Is Only a Saving Clause, Not a Bar: Supreme Court

India’s Gold Demand May Fall 10% in 2026 After Sharp Duty Hike

Can S. 122(1A) Be Invoked Against Individual Not Retaining Benefit of Transaction? Bombay HC Stays Recovery of Penalty on Director

About us

Company

Categories