<?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 (5) TMI 389 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121439</link>
    <description>Imported image intensifier systems comprising a control unit, monitor, X-ray module and image intensifier tube were treated as a single medical equipment for classification under Notification No. 21/2002-Customs, Sl. No. 363(A) read with Item No. 72 of List No. 37. The lower appellate authority accepted that the bundled components together constituted an image intensifier, and the Revenue&#039;s contention that the benefit applied only to an isolated component was not supported by the record. The view was also aligned with an earlier interpretation involving similar medical equipment. The goods were therefore held eligible for the notification benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:47:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=158433" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (5) TMI 389 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121439</link>
      <description>Imported image intensifier systems comprising a control unit, monitor, X-ray module and image intensifier tube were treated as a single medical equipment for classification under Notification No. 21/2002-Customs, Sl. No. 363(A) read with Item No. 72 of List No. 37. The lower appellate authority accepted that the bundled components together constituted an image intensifier, and the Revenue&#039;s contention that the benefit applied only to an isolated component was not supported by the record. The view was also aligned with an earlier interpretation involving similar medical equipment. The goods were therefore held eligible for the notification benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121439</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>