<?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>1995 (9) TMI 137 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84456</link>
    <description>An imported vessel qualified as an ocean-going vessel for exemption under Notification No. 262/58-Cus. because its nature, design, certification, and capability at the time of importation showed it was a sea-going ship. The exemption applied to ocean-going vessels other than vessels imported for breaking up, and no separate end-use restriction was imposed merely because the vessel was also used for uptopping or transhipping. The tribunal found that the lower authority had failed to consider the documentary and technical evidence and had relied on an inapposite Supreme Court decision involving a different vessel. The demand was therefore unsustainable and the exemption remained available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:02:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121600" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (9) TMI 137 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84456</link>
      <description>An imported vessel qualified as an ocean-going vessel for exemption under Notification No. 262/58-Cus. because its nature, design, certification, and capability at the time of importation showed it was a sea-going ship. The exemption applied to ocean-going vessels other than vessels imported for breaking up, and no separate end-use restriction was imposed merely because the vessel was also used for uptopping or transhipping. The tribunal found that the lower authority had failed to consider the documentary and technical evidence and had relied on an inapposite Supreme Court decision involving a different vessel. The demand was therefore unsustainable and the exemption remained available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84456</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>