<?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 364 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356661</link>
    <description>Business/data projectors designed for data projection and primarily meant for use with computers were treated as projectors solely or principally used in an automatic data processing system. Additional features such as HDMI, USB, composite video and audio inputs did not change their essential character or displace principal use with ADP systems. Earlier Tribunal reasoning on identical or similar projector models was followed, recognising that ancillary video compatibility does not move such goods to the residual projector entry. The goods were therefore classifiable under CTH 85286100, not CTH 85286900, and the denial of exemption, together with the consequential demand, interest and penalties, could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2019 12:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=511920" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 364 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356661</link>
      <description>Business/data projectors designed for data projection and primarily meant for use with computers were treated as projectors solely or principally used in an automatic data processing system. Additional features such as HDMI, USB, composite video and audio inputs did not change their essential character or displace principal use with ADP systems. Earlier Tribunal reasoning on identical or similar projector models was followed, recognising that ancillary video compatibility does not move such goods to the residual projector entry. The goods were therefore classifiable under CTH 85286100, not CTH 85286900, and the denial of exemption, together with the consequential demand, interest and penalties, could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356661</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>