Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a composite fax machine with answering system was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 59/88-Cus. when its individual components were separately covered by the notification.
Analysis: The imported goods consisted of two functions combined in one machine, namely, facsimile and telephone answering systems. It was accepted that each component, if imported separately, would qualify for the notification benefit. The denial rested only on the fact that the composite article was not expressly named as such. In these circumstances, the Tribunal held that there was no reason to refuse exemption merely because the covered items were combined in one machine, especially when the notification itself covered both constituent functions.
Conclusion: The composite machine was held eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 59/88-Cus., and the Revenue's appeal failed.
Final Conclusion: The exemption benefit was upheld for the imported composite machine and the Revenue's challenge to the grant of relief was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a composite imported article combines two separately exempt items, exemption cannot be denied merely because the notification does not name the combined form expressly, if both constituent functions are individually covered.