<?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>2006 (5) TMI 482 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174123</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a PSU, in a case concerning the classification of imported items under Customs Tariff Headings. The dispute centered on whether a specific item should be classified as a &quot;cellular phone&quot; under Heading 8525 20 17 to qualify for concessional rates under Notifications. Relying on precedents, including a Mumbai Bench decision upheld by the Apex Court, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant&#039;s classification. It granted the appellant benefits under the relevant Notification, emphasizing the correct classification of the item as a &quot;cellular phone&quot; and overturning the Department&#039;s denial of benefits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:12:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=399392" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (5) TMI 482 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174123</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a PSU, in a case concerning the classification of imported items under Customs Tariff Headings. The dispute centered on whether a specific item should be classified as a &quot;cellular phone&quot; under Heading 8525 20 17 to qualify for concessional rates under Notifications. Relying on precedents, including a Mumbai Bench decision upheld by the Apex Court, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant&#039;s classification. It granted the appellant benefits under the relevant Notification, emphasizing the correct classification of the item as a &quot;cellular phone&quot; and overturning the Department&#039;s denial of benefits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174123</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>