<?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>2004 (1) TMI 617 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114237</link>
    <description>Duty-free import under a conditional exemption notification was denied because the imported prototype car did not fall within the table entry for capital goods; it was imported for software testing and not for the type of production use required by the notification. The residuary entry also did not apply because the relied-upon no-objection letter related to hardware on loan basis and did not evidence the specific prior approval of the Inter-Ministerial Standing Committee for the car. Strict compliance with the notification&#039;s specific entry and approval condition was therefore required, and the exemption claim failed on both grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 10:23:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151236" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 617 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114237</link>
      <description>Duty-free import under a conditional exemption notification was denied because the imported prototype car did not fall within the table entry for capital goods; it was imported for software testing and not for the type of production use required by the notification. The residuary entry also did not apply because the relied-upon no-objection letter related to hardware on loan basis and did not evidence the specific prior approval of the Inter-Ministerial Standing Committee for the car. Strict compliance with the notification&#039;s specific entry and approval condition was therefore required, and the exemption claim failed on both grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114237</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>