<?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>2007 (4) TMI 406 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121322</link>
    <description>Unsterilized needles imported for use in manufacturing syringes with needles were held eligible for exemption under Notification No. 23/98-Cus. because the exemption covered parts required for manufacture of medical equipment falling under Heading 90.18, without needing a sub-heading reference. The needles were used after sterilisation and packing with syringes in blisters, and that process was treated as manufacture. Once the department accepted that the goods fell under Heading 90.18 and that sterilisation and packing amounted to manufacture, it could not deny that the needles were parts required for producing the medical equipment, so the exemption was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Jul 2012 12:58:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=158316" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 406 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121322</link>
      <description>Unsterilized needles imported for use in manufacturing syringes with needles were held eligible for exemption under Notification No. 23/98-Cus. because the exemption covered parts required for manufacture of medical equipment falling under Heading 90.18, without needing a sub-heading reference. The needles were used after sterilisation and packing with syringes in blisters, and that process was treated as manufacture. Once the department accepted that the goods fell under Heading 90.18 and that sterilisation and packing amounted to manufacture, it could not deny that the needles were parts required for producing the medical equipment, so the exemption was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121322</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>