<?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 (7) TMI 662 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76815</link>
    <description>Imported anaesthesia ventilator systems were examined for classification as ventilators used with anaesthesia apparatus and for exemption eligibility under Notifications No. 21/2002-Cus. and No. 6/2006-CE. The functional character, manufacturer&#039;s literature and expert material showed an integrated unit in which ventilation was the predominant function and the equipment was used during anaesthesia procedures. The goods were not treated as a mere anaesthesia delivery system, and the integrated supply and relative cost supported the conclusion that the ventilator function was substantive rather than incidental. The imported goods were eligible for the claimed exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=115002" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 662 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76815</link>
      <description>Imported anaesthesia ventilator systems were examined for classification as ventilators used with anaesthesia apparatus and for exemption eligibility under Notifications No. 21/2002-Cus. and No. 6/2006-CE. The functional character, manufacturer&#039;s literature and expert material showed an integrated unit in which ventilation was the predominant function and the equipment was used during anaesthesia procedures. The goods were not treated as a mere anaesthesia delivery system, and the integrated supply and relative cost supported the conclusion that the ventilator function was substantive rather than incidental. The imported goods were eligible for the claimed exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76815</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>