<?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 (11) TMI 1731 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782263</link>
    <description>CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal, holding that the imported Mechanical Electrical Assembly Front qualifies as a &quot;Display Assembly&quot; used in manufacture of cellular mobile phones and is entitled to exemption under Customs Notification No. 57/2017, Serial No. 6(a)(iv). The Tribunal held that inclusion of a nondetachable battery and other components does not deprive the assembly of the exemption, relying on precedent that additional features do not disqualify goods from concessional notifications. It rejected reliance on MEITY&#039;s PMP notification and unsubstantiated &quot;common trade parlance,&quot; emphasizing that the clear language of the exemption notification governs. The impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2025 08:36:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=867511" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 1731 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782263</link>
      <description>CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal, holding that the imported Mechanical Electrical Assembly Front qualifies as a &quot;Display Assembly&quot; used in manufacture of cellular mobile phones and is entitled to exemption under Customs Notification No. 57/2017, Serial No. 6(a)(iv). The Tribunal held that inclusion of a nondetachable battery and other components does not deprive the assembly of the exemption, relying on precedent that additional features do not disqualify goods from concessional notifications. It rejected reliance on MEITY&#039;s PMP notification and unsubstantiated &quot;common trade parlance,&quot; emphasizing that the clear language of the exemption notification governs. The impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782263</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>