<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1998 (9) TMI 328 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91682</link>
    <description>A tariff entry for &quot;burglar alarms&quot; was construed in its ordinary and restrictive sense, covering only alarms intended for fitment in a building to respond to burglary or unauthorised entry. On that interpretation, emergency super panic alarms, guardian light PIR lights and alarm, guardian safety light motion detector and alarm, and door stopper alarms were treated as qualifying goods, while a personal alarm with flash light was excluded because its literature showed a device designed to deter a threatening person rather than a building burglar alarm. The text also notes that, because only one item was held impermissible, the permitted and non-permitted values had to be freshly apportioned for quantification of fine in lieu of confiscation and penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:56:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128744" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (9) TMI 328 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91682</link>
      <description>A tariff entry for &quot;burglar alarms&quot; was construed in its ordinary and restrictive sense, covering only alarms intended for fitment in a building to respond to burglary or unauthorised entry. On that interpretation, emergency super panic alarms, guardian light PIR lights and alarm, guardian safety light motion detector and alarm, and door stopper alarms were treated as qualifying goods, while a personal alarm with flash light was excluded because its literature showed a device designed to deter a threatening person rather than a building burglar alarm. The text also notes that, because only one item was held impermissible, the permitted and non-permitted values had to be freshly apportioned for quantification of fine in lieu of confiscation and penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91682</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>