<?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>1997 (6) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87170</link>
    <description>Specialised medical equipment imported for a medical college and hospital qualified for duty exemption under Notification No. 63/88 because the goods were shown to be essential hospital equipment used for diagnosis and teaching. The Tribunal treated the Image Intensifier T.V. System and related medical items as specialised instruments, not general-purpose goods, and relied on their technical function, supporting certificates, and the broad explanation of &quot;hospital&quot; in the notification. It also accepted that medical education and hospital practice are closely linked, so equipment used for both teaching and treatment can fall within the exemption. The Revenue&#039;s challenge was rejected and the exemption was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 12:13:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124237" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (6) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87170</link>
      <description>Specialised medical equipment imported for a medical college and hospital qualified for duty exemption under Notification No. 63/88 because the goods were shown to be essential hospital equipment used for diagnosis and teaching. The Tribunal treated the Image Intensifier T.V. System and related medical items as specialised instruments, not general-purpose goods, and relied on their technical function, supporting certificates, and the broad explanation of &quot;hospital&quot; in the notification. It also accepted that medical education and hospital practice are closely linked, so equipment used for both teaching and treatment can fall within the exemption. The Revenue&#039;s challenge was rejected and the exemption was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87170</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>