<?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 (10) TMI 190 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779394</link>
    <description>Classification of CISCO UC/IP phones turned on whether the absence of an inbuilt video camera disqualified them from use in video conferencing and altered their tariff description under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. CESTAT found the goods to be push button telephones and noted that nothing on record showed an inbuilt video camera. The Supreme Court found no error in that conclusion and left the classification undisturbed, dismissing the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Oct 2025 09:55:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=856438" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 190 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779394</link>
      <description>Classification of CISCO UC/IP phones turned on whether the absence of an inbuilt video camera disqualified them from use in video conferencing and altered their tariff description under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. CESTAT found the goods to be push button telephones and noted that nothing on record showed an inbuilt video camera. The Supreme Court found no error in that conclusion and left the classification undisturbed, dismissing the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779394</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>