<?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 (7) TMI 398 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115511</link>
    <description>The appellants successfully demonstrated that the imported Ultrasound scanners had A-scan facility, making them eligible for Customs exemption under Notification No. 16/2000. The Adjudicating authority interpreted the notification broadly to include equipment with A-scan facility or Pacchy meter, regardless of applications other than Ophthalmology. The exemption was not limited to Ophthalmology, and Probes imported with the scanners were also entitled to the exemption. As mis-declaration charges could not be upheld, penalties under Section 114(a)/112(b)(ii) were deemed inapplicable, leading to the duty demand being set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 May 2012 16:14:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152510" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 398 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115511</link>
      <description>The appellants successfully demonstrated that the imported Ultrasound scanners had A-scan facility, making them eligible for Customs exemption under Notification No. 16/2000. The Adjudicating authority interpreted the notification broadly to include equipment with A-scan facility or Pacchy meter, regardless of applications other than Ophthalmology. The exemption was not limited to Ophthalmology, and Probes imported with the scanners were also entitled to the exemption. As mis-declaration charges could not be upheld, penalties under Section 114(a)/112(b)(ii) were deemed inapplicable, leading to the duty demand being set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115511</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>