https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772583 Wireless access points were held not to fall within the exclusion in Sl. No. 13 of Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. because the phrase "MIMO and LTE Products" was read conjunctively, not disjunctively, on its plain wording and setting within the notification. The exclusion applied only to products satisfying both MIMO and LTE conditions, and the later clarificatory amendment was treated as confirming that interpretation for earlier disputes. As the imported goods had MIMO technology but did not meet LTE standards, they remained eligible for the nil-rate exemption. en-us Tue, 10 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 08:36:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772583 Wireless access points were held not to fall within the exclusion in Sl. No. 13 of Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. because the phrase "MIMO and LTE Products" was read conjunctively, not disjunctively, on its plain wording and setting within the notification. The exclusion applied only to products satisfying both MIMO and LTE conditions, and the later clarificatory amendment was treated as confirming that interpretation for earlier disputes. As the imported goods had MIMO technology but did not meet LTE standards, they remained eligible for the nil-rate exemption. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 10 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772583