<?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>2008 (9) TMI 19 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30809</link>
    <description>Imported colour television components could not be treated as complete CKD or assembled CTVs under Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation, because the consignments were received separately over time, sourced from different countries, and were not presented as a complete or unfinished article with the essential character of a CTV. The goods also required further complex manufacturing before assembly, and the then-applicable HSN Explanatory Notes supported that distinction. The decision relied on by Revenue was distinguished as involving a fraudulent device and different facts. On these facts, the duty demand, confiscation and penalties were unsustainable, and the appeal was rejected in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2025 14:12:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69463" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 19 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30809</link>
      <description>Imported colour television components could not be treated as complete CKD or assembled CTVs under Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation, because the consignments were received separately over time, sourced from different countries, and were not presented as a complete or unfinished article with the essential character of a CTV. The goods also required further complex manufacturing before assembly, and the then-applicable HSN Explanatory Notes supported that distinction. The decision relied on by Revenue was distinguished as involving a fraudulent device and different facts. On these facts, the duty demand, confiscation and penalties were unsustainable, and the appeal was rejected in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30809</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>