Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : In re Rashi Peripherals Limited (CAAR Mumbai)
Appeal Number : Ruling No. CAAR/Mum/ARC/34/2023
Date of Judgement/Order : 08/05/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

In re Rashi Peripherals Limited (CAAR Mumbai)

On examining the functions of ‘Google Chromecast’ and ‘Chromecast with Google TV’ as stated in the aforesaid paras vis-a vis the material information available in the public domain, CAAR find that ‘Google Chromecast’ is a streaming device that enables casting videos, slideshows, music, or even screen mirror by wirelessly connecting the phone, tablet, or computer with an HD monitor that has an HDMI port and ‘Chromecast with Google TV’ is capable of casting content in exactly the same way by using the smartphone, tablet, laptop, etc., along with having its own dedicated interface and built-in selection of apps. Thus the main difference between Google Chromecast and Chromecast with Google TV is that Google Chromecast doesn’t have any apps, it just casts content, whereas Chromecast with Google TV is capable of casting and has an integrated interface with on-screen apps and remote. “Chromecast with Google TV” derives its functions from both the sources i.e. from the third equipment like smart phone or laptop and also directly functioning by using the device’s on­screen interface without using a third equipment in between. CAAR find that the subject goods are capable of performing both these functions and are only a mere improvement over the earlier model “Google Chromecast”, that is under legal dispute. I find that in the instant case the principal or primary function of `Chromecast with Google TV’ is not distinctly different from the functionality of `Google Chromecast’. Hence on this basis `Chromecast with Google TV’ device cannot be treated as an apparatus that is entirely different from `Google Chromecast’ the classification of which is under legal dispute over classification under Customs Tariff Act, 1975. As per the proviso to Section 28-1(2)(a)

(2) The Authority may, after examining the application and the records called for, by order, either allow or reject the application:

Provided that the Authority shall not allow the application where the question raised in the application is —

(a) already pending in the applicant’s case before any officer of customs, the Appellate Tribunal or any Court;

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031