<?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>2013 (8) TMI 271 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235976</link>
    <description>Projectors used solely or principally with an automatic data processing system remained classifiable under CTH 85286100, because additional input or output features such as composite video, S-video, HDMI and RCA audio did not change their essential character. The Tribunal treated the projection system as part of the computer arrangement, functioning as a monitor replacement and combining computing power with large-screen display. Following its earlier decisions, it held that extra functionality by itself does not remove such goods from the tariff heading reserved for projectors used with automatic data processing machines. The exemption claim was maintainable and the revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2014 15:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=198386" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 271 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235976</link>
      <description>Projectors used solely or principally with an automatic data processing system remained classifiable under CTH 85286100, because additional input or output features such as composite video, S-video, HDMI and RCA audio did not change their essential character. The Tribunal treated the projection system as part of the computer arrangement, functioning as a monitor replacement and combining computing power with large-screen display. Following its earlier decisions, it held that extra functionality by itself does not remove such goods from the tariff heading reserved for projectors used with automatic data processing machines. The exemption claim was maintainable and the revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235976</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>