<?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>2016 (3) TMI 252 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325068</link>
    <description>Imported LCD panels were treated as classifiable under CTH 9013 8010 as liquid crystal devices, because the tariff entry specifically naming such devices was more specific than the general entry for parts suitable for use with monitors under CTH 8529 9090. The analysis relied on the HSN description, the wording of CTH 9013, and the principle that goods described by a specific heading should be classified there unless a more specific provision applies. Section Note 2 of Section XVI did not displace the specific coverage of Chapter 90, so the Revenue&#039;s proposed classification was rejected and the claimed BCD exemption followed accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2016 12:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=419560" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 252 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325068</link>
      <description>Imported LCD panels were treated as classifiable under CTH 9013 8010 as liquid crystal devices, because the tariff entry specifically naming such devices was more specific than the general entry for parts suitable for use with monitors under CTH 8529 9090. The analysis relied on the HSN description, the wording of CTH 9013, and the principle that goods described by a specific heading should be classified there unless a more specific provision applies. Section Note 2 of Section XVI did not displace the specific coverage of Chapter 90, so the Revenue&#039;s proposed classification was rejected and the claimed BCD exemption followed accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325068</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>