<?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>2006 (6) TMI 286 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118301</link>
    <description>An integrated imported medical imaging system could not be disaggregated into a single component to deny customs concession where the notification covered complete medical equipment. The invoice, catalogue and technical material showed the goods were imported and assessed as one mobile image intensifier system functioning as a single unit. On that basis, the exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. applied, and the customs challenge to the benefit failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:22:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155298" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (6) TMI 286 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118301</link>
      <description>An integrated imported medical imaging system could not be disaggregated into a single component to deny customs concession where the notification covered complete medical equipment. The invoice, catalogue and technical material showed the goods were imported and assessed as one mobile image intensifier system functioning as a single unit. On that basis, the exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. applied, and the customs challenge to the benefit failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118301</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>