<?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>2020 (12) TMI 870 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402071</link>
    <description>The Tribunal concluded that the imported goods, an Executive IP Phone (Model No. FON670i), should be classified under CTH 8517 18 10 and not under CTH 8517 69 90. The Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision was overturned, and the appeal was granted. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following the General Rules for Interpretation and maintaining consistency in classification decisions across different Collectorates of Customs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2023 13:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=631025" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (12) TMI 870 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402071</link>
      <description>The Tribunal concluded that the imported goods, an Executive IP Phone (Model No. FON670i), should be classified under CTH 8517 18 10 and not under CTH 8517 69 90. The Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision was overturned, and the appeal was granted. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following the General Rules for Interpretation and maintaining consistency in classification decisions across different Collectorates of Customs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402071</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>