<?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>2013 (12) TMI 990 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241325</link>
    <description>The item procured was treated as a security system in substance rather than merely a component, after examining its functioning and the material on record. On that factual basis, the Tribunal rejected the departmental view that the item was only part of a security system and held that the relevant serial entry in Notification No. 22/2003-C.E. dated 31-3-2003 applied. The exemption benefit was therefore available to the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Dec 2013 08:41:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340222" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 990 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241325</link>
      <description>The item procured was treated as a security system in substance rather than merely a component, after examining its functioning and the material on record. On that factual basis, the Tribunal rejected the departmental view that the item was only part of a security system and held that the relevant serial entry in Notification No. 22/2003-C.E. dated 31-3-2003 applied. The exemption benefit was therefore available to the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241325</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>