https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445678 AAR Mumbai declined to classify Chromecast with Google TV under customs tariff, finding its primary function not distinctly different from Google Chromecast. The authority determined the device cannot be treated as generically different product qualifying for separate classification under Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Since applicant's similar device classification matter was pending before CESTAT, AAR refrained from passing order under Section 28-I of Customs Act, 1962 until dispute settlement. en-us Mon, 08 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Nov 2023 12:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445678 AAR Mumbai declined to classify Chromecast with Google TV under customs tariff, finding its primary function not distinctly different from Google Chromecast. The authority determined the device cannot be treated as generically different product qualifying for separate classification under Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Since applicant's similar device classification matter was pending before CESTAT, AAR refrained from passing order under Section 28-I of Customs Act, 1962 until dispute settlement. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 08 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445678