https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106573 Undefined exemption-notification terms were to be construed in line with settled judicial interpretation, and imported goods described as components/accessories were held capable of being assessed together with the machines under the Customs Act, so the denial of notification benefit on a restrictive spares-versus-accessories distinction was unsustainable. Procedural rejection of refund claims on the basis that the importer had not sought a speaking order was also not sustained, because the duty to issue such an order lay with the department. The orders were set aside and the refund claims were to be reconsidered on production of the original documents. en-us Thu, 29 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:37:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106573 Undefined exemption-notification terms were to be construed in line with settled judicial interpretation, and imported goods described as components/accessories were held capable of being assessed together with the machines under the Customs Act, so the denial of notification benefit on a restrictive spares-versus-accessories distinction was unsustainable. Procedural rejection of refund claims on the basis that the importer had not sought a speaking order was also not sustained, because the duty to issue such an order lay with the department. The orders were set aside and the refund claims were to be reconsidered on production of the original documents. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 29 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106573