<?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>2010 (2) TMI 1232 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188364</link>
    <description>Compressor imports for use as components in manufacturing air conditioners were treated as inputs, not capital goods, because their admitted end use was consumption in production rather than installation as plant, machinery, equipment or accessories for production or services. On that basis, the imports fell outside the licence and Exim Policy coverage, and confiscation and penalty were sustained. The document also notes that a composite adjudication order based on identical facts and a common defence should not be disturbed selectively where no contrary final order against the co-noticee is shown, since inconsistent outcomes in the same matter are impermissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2017 13:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=449807" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 1232 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188364</link>
      <description>Compressor imports for use as components in manufacturing air conditioners were treated as inputs, not capital goods, because their admitted end use was consumption in production rather than installation as plant, machinery, equipment or accessories for production or services. On that basis, the imports fell outside the licence and Exim Policy coverage, and confiscation and penalty were sustained. The document also notes that a composite adjudication order based on identical facts and a common defence should not be disturbed selectively where no contrary final order against the co-noticee is shown, since inconsistent outcomes in the same matter are impermissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188364</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>