<?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 (11) TMI 731 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108318</link>
    <description>Notification No. 155/94-Cus. exempted spare parts, accessories, jigs, tools, testing equipment, components, special raw materials and half wroughts for armoured and specialised vehicles peculiar to the Defence Services. The record lacked a finding explaining why the imported front axle shaft assemblies could not qualify within that description, particularly where the importer was a defence vehicle factory manufacturing and supplying vehicles for the Defence Services. The exemption question therefore had to be examined on the facts by the original authority, and the refund claim was remitted for de novo consideration and determination of eligibility under the notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2012 18:41:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145335" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (11) TMI 731 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108318</link>
      <description>Notification No. 155/94-Cus. exempted spare parts, accessories, jigs, tools, testing equipment, components, special raw materials and half wroughts for armoured and specialised vehicles peculiar to the Defence Services. The record lacked a finding explaining why the imported front axle shaft assemblies could not qualify within that description, particularly where the importer was a defence vehicle factory manufacturing and supplying vehicles for the Defence Services. The exemption question therefore had to be examined on the facts by the original authority, and the refund claim was remitted for de novo consideration and determination of eligibility under the notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108318</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>