<?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>1996 (8) TMI 263 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85740</link>
    <description>Strict construction of exemption notifications under customs law requires imported goods to fall within the notified description before relief can be claimed. Rotor and shaft imports were described as usable for pulp cutting rather than as paper-making machinery or component parts of such machinery, so they did not qualify under Notification No. 93/85-Cus. The exemption was therefore unavailable, and the denial of refund was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Aug 2011 17:57:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122807" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (8) TMI 263 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85740</link>
      <description>Strict construction of exemption notifications under customs law requires imported goods to fall within the notified description before relief can be claimed. Rotor and shaft imports were described as usable for pulp cutting rather than as paper-making machinery or component parts of such machinery, so they did not qualify under Notification No. 93/85-Cus. The exemption was therefore unavailable, and the denial of refund was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85740</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>