<?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>2005 (6) TMI 316 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115403</link>
    <description>The case involved a dispute over the classification of a &quot;talking parrot&quot; motorised toy, with conflicting decisions by the Bench. The original authority sided with the Department, resulting in goods confiscation, while the first appellate authority ruled in favor of the importer. Given inconsistent decisions on similar toys, the matter was referred to a Larger Bench for resolution to establish uniformity in classification decisions for similar products.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 May 2012 13:27:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152402" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (6) TMI 316 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115403</link>
      <description>The case involved a dispute over the classification of a &quot;talking parrot&quot; motorised toy, with conflicting decisions by the Bench. The original authority sided with the Department, resulting in goods confiscation, while the first appellate authority ruled in favor of the importer. Given inconsistent decisions on similar toys, the matter was referred to a Larger Bench for resolution to establish uniformity in classification decisions for similar products.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115403</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>