<?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 (10) TMI 173 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33759</link>
    <description>Operational software imported with telecom hardware, whether preloaded or supplied separately on CDs/tapes, was treated as retaining its separate identity for customs valuation. The tribunal applied the Chapter 85 classification approach and the settled principle that software value is not added to hardware merely because it is loaded onto equipment, unless it is shown to be embedded firmware or otherwise legally includible on clear evidence. On that basis, the duty demand failed, and the absence of misdeclaration or suppression also meant the extended limitation, confiscation, penalty and redemption fine could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72388" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 173 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33759</link>
      <description>Operational software imported with telecom hardware, whether preloaded or supplied separately on CDs/tapes, was treated as retaining its separate identity for customs valuation. The tribunal applied the Chapter 85 classification approach and the settled principle that software value is not added to hardware merely because it is loaded onto equipment, unless it is shown to be embedded firmware or otherwise legally includible on clear evidence. On that basis, the duty demand failed, and the absence of misdeclaration or suppression also meant the extended limitation, confiscation, penalty and redemption fine could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33759</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>