<?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>2008 (9) TMI 650 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124313</link>
    <description>Imported manuals, instructions and drawings supplied with machinery were treated as part of the machinery&#039;s valuation rather than as separate goods classifiable under Chapter 49. On that basis, the value of the licence-related documents connected with the machine could be included in the machinery value, and the concessional benefit under Notification No. 25/2002-Customs could not be denied merely by isolating those documents. Where the jurisdictional certificate confirmed use of the machinery for the intended purpose, the notification benefit applicable to the machinery remained available. The denial of concessional treatment was therefore held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2012 18:02:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161264" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 650 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124313</link>
      <description>Imported manuals, instructions and drawings supplied with machinery were treated as part of the machinery&#039;s valuation rather than as separate goods classifiable under Chapter 49. On that basis, the value of the licence-related documents connected with the machine could be included in the machinery value, and the concessional benefit under Notification No. 25/2002-Customs could not be denied merely by isolating those documents. Where the jurisdictional certificate confirmed use of the machinery for the intended purpose, the notification benefit applicable to the machinery remained available. The denial of concessional treatment was therefore held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124313</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>