<?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>1983 (9) TMI 288 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166698</link>
    <description>Transfer of Residence relief for household articles depends on proof that the goods were used, or were capable of being used, for the requisite period. Purchase and possession alone did not suffice here, because the invoices showed delivery to a shipping agent for export rather than immediate use in England, rebutting any ordinary inference of user. A supporting shipping certificate was treated as unreliable since it was prepared much later and did not satisfactorily establish actual delivery or use by the appellant&#039;s father. On these facts, the appellant failed to prove the required period of user or a sufficient right to use the goods, and the concession was denied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:51:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=367813" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (9) TMI 288 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166698</link>
      <description>Transfer of Residence relief for household articles depends on proof that the goods were used, or were capable of being used, for the requisite period. Purchase and possession alone did not suffice here, because the invoices showed delivery to a shipping agent for export rather than immediate use in England, rebutting any ordinary inference of user. A supporting shipping certificate was treated as unreliable since it was prepared much later and did not satisfactorily establish actual delivery or use by the appellant&#039;s father. On these facts, the appellant failed to prove the required period of user or a sufficient right to use the goods, and the concession was denied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166698</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>