<?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>1987 (3) TMI 343 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74381</link>
    <description>An exemption notification limited to scientific and technical instruments, apparatus and equipment did not cover imported ceramic chip capacitors described as parts. The tribunal held that, because the notification did not expressly extend concessional treatment to parts, the goods fell outside its scope and the refund claim failed on the merits. A procedural objection concerning court-fee stamp was noted but did not affect the substantive result.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Jun 2011 15:17:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112660" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (3) TMI 343 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74381</link>
      <description>An exemption notification limited to scientific and technical instruments, apparatus and equipment did not cover imported ceramic chip capacitors described as parts. The tribunal held that, because the notification did not expressly extend concessional treatment to parts, the goods fell outside its scope and the refund claim failed on the merits. A procedural objection concerning court-fee stamp was noted but did not affect the substantive result.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74381</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>