<?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 (5) TMI 992 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105658</link>
    <description>Imported PACS software was held to fall within the scope of Notification No. 011/97-Cus. dated 1-3-97 because earlier Tribunal rulings on identical facts had already settled the issue in favour of the importer. The later amending notification dated 11-2-98, which defined &quot;software,&quot; operated only after the import and did not narrow the earlier notification&#039;s coverage. On that basis, the exemption was applicable and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 06 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2012 18:02:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142696" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 992 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105658</link>
      <description>Imported PACS software was held to fall within the scope of Notification No. 011/97-Cus. dated 1-3-97 because earlier Tribunal rulings on identical facts had already settled the issue in favour of the importer. The later amending notification dated 11-2-98, which defined &quot;software,&quot; operated only after the import and did not narrow the earlier notification&#039;s coverage. On that basis, the exemption was applicable and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 06 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105658</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>