<?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>2009 (9) TMI 770 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151942</link>
    <description>Sewing machines imported without an in-built motor were held to fall within the exemption entry for machines other than those with an in-built motor. The notification was construed according to its plain language, and the mere presence of a provision for fitting a motor did not exclude the goods when no motor was fitted at import. The concessional customs duty and nil countervailing duty under the exemption notifications were therefore available, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:25:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168980" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 770 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151942</link>
      <description>Sewing machines imported without an in-built motor were held to fall within the exemption entry for machines other than those with an in-built motor. The notification was construed according to its plain language, and the mere presence of a provision for fitting a motor did not exclude the goods when no motor was fitted at import. The concessional customs duty and nil countervailing duty under the exemption notifications were therefore available, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151942</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>