<?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 537 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122301</link>
    <description>Imported second-hand engines were examined against the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009 definition of capital goods for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Customs. The policy definition was treated as controlling, and broader meanings of &quot;plant&quot; or &quot;machine&quot; from income-tax or other statutes were rejected as irrelevant. On that basis, the engines were found not to be plant, machinery, equipment or accessories required for manufacture, production or rendering of services, and earlier Tribunal rulings on diesel engines were followed. The claimed exemption was therefore unavailable, and the confiscation and penalty order was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:05:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159289" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 537 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122301</link>
      <description>Imported second-hand engines were examined against the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009 definition of capital goods for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Customs. The policy definition was treated as controlling, and broader meanings of &quot;plant&quot; or &quot;machine&quot; from income-tax or other statutes were rejected as irrelevant. On that basis, the engines were found not to be plant, machinery, equipment or accessories required for manufacture, production or rendering of services, and earlier Tribunal rulings on diesel engines were followed. The claimed exemption was therefore unavailable, and the confiscation and penalty order was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122301</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>