<?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>2017 (1) TMI 471 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337391</link>
    <description>Customs classification of a network security device turned on its essential function: the product operated as a gateway between the web and the network, transmitting data while providing security features. On that functional basis, it was treated as communication apparatus used in wired or wireless networks, including related network equipment, and not as a residuary item. The specific tariff description in Heading 8517 therefore prevailed over the general residuary Heading 8543, and the goods were held classifiable under Heading 8517. The Revenue&#039;s challenge to that classification failed, and the assessee&#039;s classification was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Feb 2018 17:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454634" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 471 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337391</link>
      <description>Customs classification of a network security device turned on its essential function: the product operated as a gateway between the web and the network, transmitting data while providing security features. On that functional basis, it was treated as communication apparatus used in wired or wireless networks, including related network equipment, and not as a residuary item. The specific tariff description in Heading 8517 therefore prevailed over the general residuary Heading 8543, and the goods were held classifiable under Heading 8517. The Revenue&#039;s challenge to that classification failed, and the assessee&#039;s classification was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337391</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>