<?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 433 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121410</link>
    <description>Imported self-bonding/self-soldering enamelled copper wire was held to fall within Customs Notification No. 64/95 because the factual material showed it was used in the manufacture of DC Micromotors specified as finished goods in the notification. Expert evidence accepted by the adjudicating authority indicated that the wire, together with the stator and rotor, formed a DC Micromotor in the watch manufacturing process. The Revenue&#039;s objection that no separate micromotor emerged as a distinct unit did not displace that evidence. Even on strict construction of the exemption, the goods were treated as covered by the relevant entry, and the exemption was rightly allowed; the demand was therefore not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:41:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=158404" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 433 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121410</link>
      <description>Imported self-bonding/self-soldering enamelled copper wire was held to fall within Customs Notification No. 64/95 because the factual material showed it was used in the manufacture of DC Micromotors specified as finished goods in the notification. Expert evidence accepted by the adjudicating authority indicated that the wire, together with the stator and rotor, formed a DC Micromotor in the watch manufacturing process. The Revenue&#039;s objection that no separate micromotor emerged as a distinct unit did not displace that evidence. Even on strict construction of the exemption, the goods were treated as covered by the relevant entry, and the exemption was rightly allowed; the demand was therefore not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121410</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>