Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Search

We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Search

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

Face recognition access controllers classified as ADP machines under CTH 8471, get NIL duty under Notification 24/2005-Cus

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CESTAT held that the imported Access Controller Face Recognition System possesses all essential features of an Automatic Data Processing Machine, including read/write memory, 4 GB RAM, 64 GB nano flash, embedded Linux OS, and capability for automatic facial recognition, and is therefore classifiable under CTH 8471, not under CTH 8543 as electrical machinery. Consequently, the benefit of NIL duty under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus was allowed. Confiscation and redemption fine on alleged excess items were set aside, as evidence showed they were earlier imports sent for repair. Invocation of the extended limitation period failed for want of suppression, rendering the extended period demand and all penalties unsustainable. Appeals were allowed.....