<?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 (11) TMI 898 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168552</link>
    <description>Imported data projectors were discussed as classifiable under Heading 8528.61, which covers projectors principally used with automatic data processing systems. The analysis applied Chapter Note 5(C) and (D) to Chapter 84 and treated principal use as the decisive classification test; ancillary video compatibility did not displace that heading where the goods were mainly used with computers for data projection. On that basis, the exemption linked to the same sub-heading under Notification No. 24/2005 was also treated as available. The matter was stated to follow the assessee&#039;s earlier case on the same product, with the demand set aside and consequential relief granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 May 2018 09:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=378485" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (11) TMI 898 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168552</link>
      <description>Imported data projectors were discussed as classifiable under Heading 8528.61, which covers projectors principally used with automatic data processing systems. The analysis applied Chapter Note 5(C) and (D) to Chapter 84 and treated principal use as the decisive classification test; ancillary video compatibility did not displace that heading where the goods were mainly used with computers for data projection. On that basis, the exemption linked to the same sub-heading under Notification No. 24/2005 was also treated as available. The matter was stated to follow the assessee&#039;s earlier case on the same product, with the demand set aside and consequential relief granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168552</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>