<?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>2016 (8) TMI 1253 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193870</link>
    <description>An exemption entry requiring relays to have a contact rating up to 7 amperes was interpreted as applying to all forms of contact rating because the notification did not distinguish between inductive and resistive load. Since the admitted resistive rating of the goods exceeded 7 amperes, the goods did not satisfy the exemption condition. The benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., List 26, entry 12 was therefore unavailable, and the claim failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2017 21:07:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=486220" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 1253 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193870</link>
      <description>An exemption entry requiring relays to have a contact rating up to 7 amperes was interpreted as applying to all forms of contact rating because the notification did not distinguish between inductive and resistive load. Since the admitted resistive rating of the goods exceeded 7 amperes, the goods did not satisfy the exemption condition. The benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., List 26, entry 12 was therefore unavailable, and the claim failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193870</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>