<?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>2000 (10) TMI 385 - COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94996</link>
    <description>Imported special purpose motor vehicles and a hydraulic platform were treated as covered by Notification No. 23/98-Cus. because the prescribed certificates confirmed their use for fire-fighting operations by an organisation administered by the Government of India. Once the mandatory exemption conditions were satisfied and the competent certifying authority had issued the required certification, the customs authority could not disregard that determination or deny the benefit on a different view of eligibility. The ownership and administrative control of the appellant did not justify exclusion from the notification. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the exemption benefit was available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 11:06:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132055" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (10) TMI 385 - COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94996</link>
      <description>Imported special purpose motor vehicles and a hydraulic platform were treated as covered by Notification No. 23/98-Cus. because the prescribed certificates confirmed their use for fire-fighting operations by an organisation administered by the Government of India. Once the mandatory exemption conditions were satisfied and the competent certifying authority had issued the required certification, the customs authority could not disregard that determination or deny the benefit on a different view of eligibility. The ownership and administrative control of the appellant did not justify exclusion from the notification. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the exemption benefit was available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94996</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>