<?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>2010 (8) TMI 426 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203424</link>
    <description>A server imported as data processing equipment was held to be distinct from stand-alone personal computers and laptops. The circular prohibiting import of second-hand personal computers and laptops did not extend to the server on the facts found, because the item was meant for specific network applications and did not fall within the covered category. The Tribunal&#039;s view that the circular was inapplicable was therefore sustained, and the import was not barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 May 2011 07:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176984" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 426 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203424</link>
      <description>A server imported as data processing equipment was held to be distinct from stand-alone personal computers and laptops. The circular prohibiting import of second-hand personal computers and laptops did not extend to the server on the facts found, because the item was meant for specific network applications and did not fall within the covered category. The Tribunal&#039;s view that the circular was inapplicable was therefore sustained, and the import was not barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203424</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>