<?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>2003 (1) TMI 598 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109230</link>
    <description>Parts or components of a TV tuner were held outside the scope of Notification No. 232/83-Cus. because the exemption entry named only the TV tuner and did not extend to its unmentioned parts. The notification separately referred to components and parts of colour television, but that wording could not be read into the TV tuner entry. As the imported goods were not TV tuners as such, concessional duty was denied, and the cited precedent was found inapplicable on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2012 17:28:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146247" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (1) TMI 598 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109230</link>
      <description>Parts or components of a TV tuner were held outside the scope of Notification No. 232/83-Cus. because the exemption entry named only the TV tuner and did not extend to its unmentioned parts. The notification separately referred to components and parts of colour television, but that wording could not be read into the TV tuner entry. As the imported goods were not TV tuners as such, concessional duty was denied, and the cited precedent was found inapplicable on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109230</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>