<?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>2005 (1) TMI 495 - CESTAT,  BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115171</link>
    <description>Customs exemption under Notification No. 51/96-Cus. was treated as available where the affiliating University was DSIR-registered and had issued the essentiality certificate, and a separate DSIR registration of the importing college was not insisted on in light of the Ministry&#039;s clarification. The Tribunal also found no supported basis for fraud in obtaining the certificate or for alleged misutilisation of the imported equipment, noting that the goods were used for research projects. On that footing, the extended period, penalty, confiscation, fine and interest were held unsustainable, and the exemption claim was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 14:21:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152170" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 495 - CESTAT,  BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115171</link>
      <description>Customs exemption under Notification No. 51/96-Cus. was treated as available where the affiliating University was DSIR-registered and had issued the essentiality certificate, and a separate DSIR registration of the importing college was not insisted on in light of the Ministry&#039;s clarification. The Tribunal also found no supported basis for fraud in obtaining the certificate or for alleged misutilisation of the imported equipment, noting that the goods were used for research projects. On that footing, the extended period, penalty, confiscation, fine and interest were held unsustainable, and the exemption claim was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115171</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>