<?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>1998 (8) TMI 378 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92354</link>
    <description>A combined fax machine and telephone answering machine was held entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 59/88-Cus. because each separate component was already accepted by the Revenue as qualifying for the exemption. The Tribunal found no legal basis to deny the same benefit merely because the two functions were integrated into one article, and it distinguished the authorities relied on by the Revenue as inapplicable to the facts. The Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2011 10:34:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129415" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (8) TMI 378 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92354</link>
      <description>A combined fax machine and telephone answering machine was held entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 59/88-Cus. because each separate component was already accepted by the Revenue as qualifying for the exemption. The Tribunal found no legal basis to deny the same benefit merely because the two functions were integrated into one article, and it distinguished the authorities relied on by the Revenue as inapplicable to the facts. The Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92354</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>