<?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>1995 (12) TMI 226 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102548</link>
    <description>Imported balloon catheters were treated as eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 208/81 and the ITC Policy under OGL Appendix 6, because earlier Tribunal orders had already resolved the same controversy in favour of similar imports. The Tribunal found no distinguishing basis to depart from that settled position, so the claimed exemption and import-policy benefit were maintained and the departmental challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:54:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139594" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (12) TMI 226 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102548</link>
      <description>Imported balloon catheters were treated as eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 208/81 and the ITC Policy under OGL Appendix 6, because earlier Tribunal orders had already resolved the same controversy in favour of similar imports. The Tribunal found no distinguishing basis to depart from that settled position, so the claimed exemption and import-policy benefit were maintained and the departmental challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102548</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>