<?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>2003 (8) TMI 431 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109983</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 65/1994 was available for machinery installed in the importer&#039;s own factory for manufacture of fuel injection equipment, and the required installation certificate was admitted to be satisfied. The notification did not expressly exclude a machine that also performed cleaning operations. On that basis, the machine&#039;s dual use for cleaning did not justify denial of the exemption, and the benefit was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:54:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146999" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (8) TMI 431 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109983</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 65/1994 was available for machinery installed in the importer&#039;s own factory for manufacture of fuel injection equipment, and the required installation certificate was admitted to be satisfied. The notification did not expressly exclude a machine that also performed cleaning operations. On that basis, the machine&#039;s dual use for cleaning did not justify denial of the exemption, and the benefit was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109983</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>