<?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>2003 (12) TMI 647 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188227</link>
    <description>The imported fabric dyeing machine, together with its dye kitchen and accessories, was held to fall within the exemption entry because the evidence showed a composite system performing the required mixing, metering, dosing, heating and related dyeing functions. A contrary opinion based on a different machine and a separate dye kitchen concept was found unhelpful, as it did not examine the goods in question. On the record, the Textiles Committee clarification, SGS India report and expert technical opinion supported the view that the dye kitchen was an integral part of the machine. The exemption benefit could not therefore be denied, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2016 13:00:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=448715" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 647 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188227</link>
      <description>The imported fabric dyeing machine, together with its dye kitchen and accessories, was held to fall within the exemption entry because the evidence showed a composite system performing the required mixing, metering, dosing, heating and related dyeing functions. A contrary opinion based on a different machine and a separate dye kitchen concept was found unhelpful, as it did not examine the goods in question. On the record, the Textiles Committee clarification, SGS India report and expert technical opinion supported the view that the dye kitchen was an integral part of the machine. The exemption benefit could not therefore be denied, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188227</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>