<?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 780 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99882</link>
    <description>Plastic foil imported for use in erecting a greenhouse was treated as a component of capital goods and therefore eligible for exemption under Customs Notification No. 49/2000. The notification extended to capital goods, capital goods in SKD and CKD condition, and components required for assembly or manufacture of capital goods. Because an erected greenhouse was regarded as equipment falling within capital goods, the plastic sheets used to make or erect it were covered by the exemption. The view that exemption applied only when all components of the capital goods were imported was rejected as unsupported by the notification and the relevant clarification, and the denial of exemption was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2012 19:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136934" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (10) TMI 780 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99882</link>
      <description>Plastic foil imported for use in erecting a greenhouse was treated as a component of capital goods and therefore eligible for exemption under Customs Notification No. 49/2000. The notification extended to capital goods, capital goods in SKD and CKD condition, and components required for assembly or manufacture of capital goods. Because an erected greenhouse was regarded as equipment falling within capital goods, the plastic sheets used to make or erect it were covered by the exemption. The view that exemption applied only when all components of the capital goods were imported was rejected as unsupported by the notification and the relevant clarification, and the denial of exemption was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99882</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>