<?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>1985 (5) TMI 224 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167426</link>
    <description>Fully automatic and computerised colour film processing equipment imported for a mini colour laboratory was treated as eligible for project import concession under the relevant tariff heading, because the import had the required licence and sponsoring authority recommendation, and a Government circular recognised such laboratories as admissible subject to normal conditions. The text also notes reliance on a Madras High Court ruling on identical facts and the absence of any contrary higher court view. On that basis, the departmental objection that the laboratory was only a service or job industry was rejected and the project import benefit was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 May 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:21:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=371527" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (5) TMI 224 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167426</link>
      <description>Fully automatic and computerised colour film processing equipment imported for a mini colour laboratory was treated as eligible for project import concession under the relevant tariff heading, because the import had the required licence and sponsoring authority recommendation, and a Government circular recognised such laboratories as admissible subject to normal conditions. The text also notes reliance on a Madras High Court ruling on identical facts and the absence of any contrary higher court view. On that basis, the departmental objection that the laboratory was only a service or job industry was rejected and the project import benefit was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 May 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167426</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>