<?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>1994 (3) TMI 224 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83213</link>
    <description>Actual User (Non-Industrial) status for import entitlement turned on whether the appellants proved that the film editing machine was meant for their own film production use. Registration under the Shops and Establishments Act was not decisive on its own, but the membership certificate of a recognised film producers&#039; association, registration with the National Film Development Corporation, and a Ministry letter acknowledging film production experience together established the required nexus. The use of hired studios did not negate ownership and use of the appellants&#039; own equipment for production. The import was treated as for actual use, and the confiscation and redemption fine were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:16:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120358" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (3) TMI 224 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83213</link>
      <description>Actual User (Non-Industrial) status for import entitlement turned on whether the appellants proved that the film editing machine was meant for their own film production use. Registration under the Shops and Establishments Act was not decisive on its own, but the membership certificate of a recognised film producers&#039; association, registration with the National Film Development Corporation, and a Ministry letter acknowledging film production experience together established the required nexus. The use of hired studios did not negate ownership and use of the appellants&#039; own equipment for production. The import was treated as for actual use, and the confiscation and redemption fine were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83213</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>