<?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 (3) TMI 642 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114288</link>
    <description>The importer was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 176-Cus. for jumbo rolls of medical X-ray films because the goods fell within the notification&#039;s description and the prescribed condition was satisfied on the facts. The industrial licence required for slitting and confectioning of photo-sensitised materials from jumbo rolls was treated by the licensing authority as effective from an earlier date, so the importer was regarded as holding the licence at the time of import. The exemption condition could not be enlarged beyond its express terms, and medical X-ray films were not shown to fall outside the licence requirement. The duty demand was therefore not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sun, 09 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 14:33:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151287" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 642 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114288</link>
      <description>The importer was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 176-Cus. for jumbo rolls of medical X-ray films because the goods fell within the notification&#039;s description and the prescribed condition was satisfied on the facts. The industrial licence required for slitting and confectioning of photo-sensitised materials from jumbo rolls was treated by the licensing authority as effective from an earlier date, so the importer was regarded as holding the licence at the time of import. The exemption condition could not be enlarged beyond its express terms, and medical X-ray films were not shown to fall outside the licence requirement. The duty demand was therefore not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sun, 09 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114288</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>