<?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>1990 (2) TMI 166 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80350</link>
    <description>Heat shrinkable sleeves imported against Defence Ministry-certified orders were treated as eligible for customs exemption as radar spares and accessories, because the import papers, certificate, annexed list and supplier catalogue showed specific part numbers, discrete quantities and direct use as cable accessories for defence cable assembly. The view that the goods were merely running-length raw material was inconsistent with that documentary record and with their certified exclusive defence use, so the exemption under Notification No. 206/76-Customs was upheld and the department&#039;s objection rejected. A fresh contention of general-purpose use was not entertained because it was not part of the original challenge.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:28:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117496" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (2) TMI 166 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80350</link>
      <description>Heat shrinkable sleeves imported against Defence Ministry-certified orders were treated as eligible for customs exemption as radar spares and accessories, because the import papers, certificate, annexed list and supplier catalogue showed specific part numbers, discrete quantities and direct use as cable accessories for defence cable assembly. The view that the goods were merely running-length raw material was inconsistent with that documentary record and with their certified exclusive defence use, so the exemption under Notification No. 206/76-Customs was upheld and the department&#039;s objection rejected. A fresh contention of general-purpose use was not entertained because it was not part of the original challenge.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80350</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>