<?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 (6) TMI 413 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344142</link>
    <description>Imported liquid crystal devices are classified under Heading 9013 80 10 when they are specifically described by that tariff entry, and they do not move to Heading 8529 merely because they are used as parts of LCD televisions. The analysis turns on relative specificity: a named and exclusive heading prevails over a general parts heading. Section Note 2 of Section XVI was found inapplicable because the dispute lay in Chapter 90, and Note 1(m) excluded Chapter 90 articles from Section XVI. The reasoning was reinforced by prior and later Supreme Court authority supporting classification under the specific heading. The assessee obtained relief and the Revenue&#039;s classification was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2018 12:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=471464" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 413 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344142</link>
      <description>Imported liquid crystal devices are classified under Heading 9013 80 10 when they are specifically described by that tariff entry, and they do not move to Heading 8529 merely because they are used as parts of LCD televisions. The analysis turns on relative specificity: a named and exclusive heading prevails over a general parts heading. Section Note 2 of Section XVI was found inapplicable because the dispute lay in Chapter 90, and Note 1(m) excluded Chapter 90 articles from Section XVI. The reasoning was reinforced by prior and later Supreme Court authority supporting classification under the specific heading. The assessee obtained relief and the Revenue&#039;s classification was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344142</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>