<?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>2010 (9) TMI 739 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205889</link>
    <description>Separately imported VRLA lead-acid batteries classifiable under heading 8507 20 00 were held not to qualify as parts, components or accessories of IFW telephones for exemption under the customs notification, because they could not be fitted inside the telephones and served only as backup power in the SMPS. The document states that such batteries therefore fall outside the exemption granted to mobile handset parts and related accessories. It also records that declaring the batteries as telephone parts amounted to deliberate misdescription to obtain the exemption, so confiscation and penalty were justified, with only limited reduction of redemption fine and penalty in one appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=179389" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 739 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205889</link>
      <description>Separately imported VRLA lead-acid batteries classifiable under heading 8507 20 00 were held not to qualify as parts, components or accessories of IFW telephones for exemption under the customs notification, because they could not be fitted inside the telephones and served only as backup power in the SMPS. The document states that such batteries therefore fall outside the exemption granted to mobile handset parts and related accessories. It also records that declaring the batteries as telephone parts amounted to deliberate misdescription to obtain the exemption, so confiscation and penalty were justified, with only limited reduction of redemption fine and penalty in one appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205889</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>