<?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>2001 (7) TMI 480 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97195</link>
    <description>An exemption notification for special purpose motor vehicles used in fire fighting and rescue operations applied only to goods imported by fire services administered by the Central or a State Government, and the prescribed certificate was only one condition for availing the concession. The substantive eligibility requirement and the certificate had to be read together. On the facts, the claimant was not shown to be a fire fighting service, and a certificate referring to administration by a Ministry did not establish entitlement, especially where the shareholding pattern showed only minority State participation and no Central Government interest. The duty concession was therefore not available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:02:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134253" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 480 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97195</link>
      <description>An exemption notification for special purpose motor vehicles used in fire fighting and rescue operations applied only to goods imported by fire services administered by the Central or a State Government, and the prescribed certificate was only one condition for availing the concession. The substantive eligibility requirement and the certificate had to be read together. On the facts, the claimant was not shown to be a fire fighting service, and a certificate referring to administration by a Ministry did not establish entitlement, especially where the shareholding pattern showed only minority State participation and no Central Government interest. The duty concession was therefore not available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97195</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>