Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Bluetooth-enabled wireless headsets, earphones, earbuds and neckbands were held classifiable as transmission or reception apparatus under CTH 85176290 because their essential character and principal function was to receive, convert and transmit voice and data in a wireless network, not merely to carry audio signals. The Tribunal relied on Board Circular No. 36/2013-Cus. and prior CESTAT reasoning to treat such devices as active parts of a wireless network, while headphones with only audio functionality remain under heading 8518. The reclassification under CTH 85183000 was set aside, and the consequential duty demand based on that classification did not survive.
Bluetooth-enabled wireless headsets, earphones, earbuds and neckbands were held classifiable as transmission or reception apparatus under CTH 85176290 because their essential character and principal function was to receive, convert and transmit voice and data in a wireless network, not merely to carry audio signals. The Tribunal relied on Board Circular No. 36/2013-Cus. and prior CESTAT reasoning to treat such devices as active parts of a wireless network, while headphones with only audio functionality remain under heading 8518. The reclassification under CTH 85183000 was set aside, and the consequential duty demand based on that classification did not survive.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
