<?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>1984 (8) TMI 317 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167105</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the Collector&#039;s decision with modifications, reducing fines and penalties imposed on the appellants. The Fiber Light Operating Microscopes were not classified as endoscopic equipment, and duty exemption under Notification No. 17/79 was denied due to discrepancies in proforma invoices and exemption certificates. The import was deemed unauthorized, leading to justified confiscation of the goods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2014 10:48:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=370353" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (8) TMI 317 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167105</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the Collector&#039;s decision with modifications, reducing fines and penalties imposed on the appellants. The Fiber Light Operating Microscopes were not classified as endoscopic equipment, and duty exemption under Notification No. 17/79 was denied due to discrepancies in proforma invoices and exemption certificates. The import was deemed unauthorized, leading to justified confiscation of the goods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167105</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>