<?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>1992 (10) TMI 192 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82253</link>
    <description>Graphic Art Films imported for newspaper production were held ineligible for exemption under Notification No. 103/89-Cus. because the notification required both import by a newspaper establishment and registration with the Registrar of Newspapers for India. The majority read &quot;newspaper establishment&quot; to mean a common establishment integrating the owner, editor, printers and publishers in the newspaper&#039;s production and circulation, so printers and publishers outside the same ownership structure did not qualify. It also applied the rule that exemption notifications must be strictly construed on their plain terms. A dissenting view treated the notification as aimed at the newspaper industry generally and found the registration and printer-publisher role sufficient.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Jul 2011 18:34:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119398" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (10) TMI 192 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82253</link>
      <description>Graphic Art Films imported for newspaper production were held ineligible for exemption under Notification No. 103/89-Cus. because the notification required both import by a newspaper establishment and registration with the Registrar of Newspapers for India. The majority read &quot;newspaper establishment&quot; to mean a common establishment integrating the owner, editor, printers and publishers in the newspaper&#039;s production and circulation, so printers and publishers outside the same ownership structure did not qualify. It also applied the rule that exemption notifications must be strictly construed on their plain terms. A dissenting view treated the notification as aimed at the newspaper industry generally and found the registration and printer-publisher role sufficient.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82253</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>