<?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>2009 (5) TMI 416 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76084</link>
    <description>Dredging pumping units, engines, pipes and allied items imported for use with a cutter suction dredger were held not to be integral parts of the dredger because they were separately owned, procured for regular use and not shown to be exclusively meant for the hired vessel. The exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. was also unavailable because Section Note 2(e) of Section XVII excludes machines and apparatus of headings 8401 to 8479, and their parts, from the expression &quot;parts&quot; and &quot;parts and accessories&quot; of that Section. The appellate order extending exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the original adjudication stood restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114307" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 416 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76084</link>
      <description>Dredging pumping units, engines, pipes and allied items imported for use with a cutter suction dredger were held not to be integral parts of the dredger because they were separately owned, procured for regular use and not shown to be exclusively meant for the hired vessel. The exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. was also unavailable because Section Note 2(e) of Section XVII excludes machines and apparatus of headings 8401 to 8479, and their parts, from the expression &quot;parts&quot; and &quot;parts and accessories&quot; of that Section. The appellate order extending exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the original adjudication stood restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76084</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>