<?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>2002 (3) TMI 524 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102384</link>
    <description>Imported compressor parts were held ineligible for the exemption under Notification No. 172/89 because the notification applied only to goods falling within the specified heading and excluded parts of machinery or equipment for use in air-conditioning. The importer&#039;s evidence showed only that the parts were used for compressing ammonia, which did not establish that they were outside the scope of compressor parts used in refrigerating equipment. As exemption was claimed by the party asserting it, the burden lay on the claimant to prove eligibility, and the materials produced were insufficient. Exemption was therefore denied and the claim for relief failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:57:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139433" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (3) TMI 524 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102384</link>
      <description>Imported compressor parts were held ineligible for the exemption under Notification No. 172/89 because the notification applied only to goods falling within the specified heading and excluded parts of machinery or equipment for use in air-conditioning. The importer&#039;s evidence showed only that the parts were used for compressing ammonia, which did not establish that they were outside the scope of compressor parts used in refrigerating equipment. As exemption was claimed by the party asserting it, the burden lay on the claimant to prove eligibility, and the materials produced were insufficient. Exemption was therefore denied and the claim for relief failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102384</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>