<?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 (8) TMI 1656 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463625</link>
    <description>Imported CISCO IP Phones were held classifiable as telephone sets of push-button type under Customs Tariff Item 8517 18 10 rather than as other apparatus under Customs Tariff Item 8517 62 90. Classification had to follow the tariff headings, Section and Chapter Notes, and the General Rules for Interpretation. The goods were treated as complete telephone instruments with handset, keypad, display and speaker, whose internet-based protocol did not alter their essential telephony function. Applying the rule of specificity, the more specific telephone-set entry prevailed over the residuary communication-apparatus entry. The coordinate-bench decision on video conferencing equipment was distinguished on facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2025 14:55:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=849256" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (8) TMI 1656 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463625</link>
      <description>Imported CISCO IP Phones were held classifiable as telephone sets of push-button type under Customs Tariff Item 8517 18 10 rather than as other apparatus under Customs Tariff Item 8517 62 90. Classification had to follow the tariff headings, Section and Chapter Notes, and the General Rules for Interpretation. The goods were treated as complete telephone instruments with handset, keypad, display and speaker, whose internet-based protocol did not alter their essential telephony function. Applying the rule of specificity, the more specific telephone-set entry prevailed over the residuary communication-apparatus entry. The coordinate-bench decision on video conferencing equipment was distinguished on facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463625</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>