<?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>2023 (10) TMI 363 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444140</link>
    <description>Goods classified under tariff item 39199090 were held to fall within the concessional basic customs duty benefit under Notification No. 57/2017-Cus, as amended, because the entry covered that tariff item generally and excluded only the specified cellular mobile phone parts and sub-parts. The Revenue&#039;s attempt to read in an additional user-based restriction, limiting the benefit to goods used in cellular phones or electronic goods, was rejected as unsupported by the notification text. On a plain reading of the exemption entry, the benefit remained available to all other goods under the specified tariff item, and denial of the concession was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:30:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=728599" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (10) TMI 363 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444140</link>
      <description>Goods classified under tariff item 39199090 were held to fall within the concessional basic customs duty benefit under Notification No. 57/2017-Cus, as amended, because the entry covered that tariff item generally and excluded only the specified cellular mobile phone parts and sub-parts. The Revenue&#039;s attempt to read in an additional user-based restriction, limiting the benefit to goods used in cellular phones or electronic goods, was rejected as unsupported by the notification text. On a plain reading of the exemption entry, the benefit remained available to all other goods under the specified tariff item, and denial of the concession was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444140</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>