<?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 (3) TMI 536 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121386</link>
    <description>Imported computerized pattern makers for textile use qualified for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. because the notification expressly covered computerized pattern maker/pattern grader/marker machinery and did not require independent operation. The Tribunal accepted unchallenged technical material and expert evidence showing the goods were capable of pattern creation and were commercially understood as pattern makers, not as loom parts or accessories. The fact that the machines were used in conjunction with another machine did not defeat the exemption, as no such restriction was imposed by the notification. The order granting exemption was sustained and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:16:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=158380" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (3) TMI 536 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121386</link>
      <description>Imported computerized pattern makers for textile use qualified for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. because the notification expressly covered computerized pattern maker/pattern grader/marker machinery and did not require independent operation. The Tribunal accepted unchallenged technical material and expert evidence showing the goods were capable of pattern creation and were commercially understood as pattern makers, not as loom parts or accessories. The fact that the machines were used in conjunction with another machine did not defeat the exemption, as no such restriction was imposed by the notification. The order granting exemption was sustained and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121386</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>