<?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 (11) TMI 357 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117605</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, allowing the respondent&#039;s appeal for customs duty exemption on imported Black &amp;amp; White Thermal Printers for medical use. The Tribunal determined that the equipment qualified as an accessory to ultra sound scanner systems under Notification No. 65/88, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s argument of unjust enrichment as the duty burden had not been passed on to the buyer. The Tribunal distinguished a previous case cited by the Revenue, Priya Blue, emphasizing that it did not apply in this scenario where the exemption benefit had not been claimed initially. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:56:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154602" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (11) TMI 357 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117605</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, allowing the respondent&#039;s appeal for customs duty exemption on imported Black &amp;amp; White Thermal Printers for medical use. The Tribunal determined that the equipment qualified as an accessory to ultra sound scanner systems under Notification No. 65/88, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s argument of unjust enrichment as the duty burden had not been passed on to the buyer. The Tribunal distinguished a previous case cited by the Revenue, Priya Blue, emphasizing that it did not apply in this scenario where the exemption benefit had not been claimed initially. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117605</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>