<?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>2011 (3) TMI 177 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203521</link>
    <description>An imported machine performing both embroidery and quilting functions was held eligible for customs exemption because the notification covered embroidery machines separately, and Board clarification allowed the principal function to determine eligibility. The existence of an additional quilting function did not justify denial where the main embroidery function fell within the notified entry, so the exemption was admissible and the denial of benefit was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Aug 2013 14:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=177077" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 177 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203521</link>
      <description>An imported machine performing both embroidery and quilting functions was held eligible for customs exemption because the notification covered embroidery machines separately, and Board clarification allowed the principal function to determine eligibility. The existence of an additional quilting function did not justify denial where the main embroidery function fell within the notified entry, so the exemption was admissible and the denial of benefit was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203521</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>