<?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>2018 (3) TMI 279 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356576</link>
    <description>Video servers that converted analogue camera signals into digital streams for IP transmission were classified under Heading 85177090, because the device acted as an intermediary network component and did not record or reproduce video on the server itself. The presence of a record button, live-stream access, or temporary buffering in RAM did not make it a video recording apparatus under Heading 85219090, where actual recording occurred on the computer or client workstation. The Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s factual findings were accepted as sound, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed. Exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-CUS was therefore available on the affirmed classification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2019 14:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=511703" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 279 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356576</link>
      <description>Video servers that converted analogue camera signals into digital streams for IP transmission were classified under Heading 85177090, because the device acted as an intermediary network component and did not record or reproduce video on the server itself. The presence of a record button, live-stream access, or temporary buffering in RAM did not make it a video recording apparatus under Heading 85219090, where actual recording occurred on the computer or client workstation. The Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s factual findings were accepted as sound, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed. Exemption under Notification No. 24/2005-CUS was therefore available on the affirmed classification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356576</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>