<?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>2025 (5) TMI 416 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770144</link>
    <description>CESTAT New Delhi held that Metal Core Printed Circuit Boards (MCPCBs) are classified as PCBs despite additional heat dissipation functionality, similar to how a car remains a car with additional features. The tribunal ruled that aluminium-based copper clad laminates were covered under exemption notification 25/1999-CUS before 2022 amendment, as composite materials can fall under multiple chapters including Chapter 76 for aluminium goods. The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) lacked jurisdiction to issue show cause notices for 29 Bills of Entry already adjudicated by jurisdictional Commissioner, and could not take contrary view on remaining 51 Bills involving identical issues. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 May 2025 09:18:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=820052" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 416 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770144</link>
      <description>CESTAT New Delhi held that Metal Core Printed Circuit Boards (MCPCBs) are classified as PCBs despite additional heat dissipation functionality, similar to how a car remains a car with additional features. The tribunal ruled that aluminium-based copper clad laminates were covered under exemption notification 25/1999-CUS before 2022 amendment, as composite materials can fall under multiple chapters including Chapter 76 for aluminium goods. The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) lacked jurisdiction to issue show cause notices for 29 Bills of Entry already adjudicated by jurisdictional Commissioner, and could not take contrary view on remaining 51 Bills involving identical issues. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770144</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>