https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375687 Exemption under Notification No. 25/2005-Cus. depended on proving that the imported product was a digital still image camera rather than a video camera or camcorder. The Board's circular limited the benefit to digital cameras whose principal function was still image recording, even if they could record moving images only for a limited period; camcorders and video recorders with both still and moving image capabilities were excluded. As no product literature, user manual, or other evidence was produced to show that the item was primarily a still image camera, the claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof. The denial of exemption was therefore upheld. en-us Thu, 04 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Apr 2019 15:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375687 Exemption under Notification No. 25/2005-Cus. depended on proving that the imported product was a digital still image camera rather than a video camera or camcorder. The Board's circular limited the benefit to digital cameras whose principal function was still image recording, even if they could record moving images only for a limited period; camcorders and video recorders with both still and moving image capabilities were excluded. As no product literature, user manual, or other evidence was produced to show that the item was primarily a still image camera, the claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof. The denial of exemption was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 04 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375687