<?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>2008 (7) TMI 494 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75105</link>
    <description>Under the project import scheme, a fertiliser unit&#039;s substantial expansion was treated as a composite project, so an imported Steam Turbine claimed as an integral project item could not be isolated and reclassified as a separate captive power plant. The sponsoring Ministry&#039;s essentiality certificate is a material basis for determining eligibility, and once the item is shown as capital goods required for the project, customs authorities cannot dissect the project approval to deny exemption on a different footing. The commentary concludes that a revenue-oriented refusal is inconsistent with the project-import framework and that the project import exemption was available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113377" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 494 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75105</link>
      <description>Under the project import scheme, a fertiliser unit&#039;s substantial expansion was treated as a composite project, so an imported Steam Turbine claimed as an integral project item could not be isolated and reclassified as a separate captive power plant. The sponsoring Ministry&#039;s essentiality certificate is a material basis for determining eligibility, and once the item is shown as capital goods required for the project, customs authorities cannot dissect the project approval to deny exemption on a different footing. The commentary concludes that a revenue-oriented refusal is inconsistent with the project-import framework and that the project import exemption was available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75105</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>