<?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 (10) TMI 371 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117028</link>
    <description>Imported goods were treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 23/96-Cus. because, on the facts found, they fell within the description &quot;Digital Imaging System for face X-ray&quot; as equipment made for dental radiography. The lower appellate authority&#039;s view was that the notification covered the goods, and no reason was shown to disturb that finding. The exemption was therefore upheld and the departmental appeal was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:43:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154026" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 371 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117028</link>
      <description>Imported goods were treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 23/96-Cus. because, on the facts found, they fell within the description &quot;Digital Imaging System for face X-ray&quot; as equipment made for dental radiography. The lower appellate authority&#039;s view was that the notification covered the goods, and no reason was shown to disturb that finding. The exemption was therefore upheld and the departmental appeal was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117028</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>