https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355773 The expression "internal use" in the customs exemption entry had to be given its ordinary meaning, and could not be restricted by an artificial construction suggested by the Revenue. The imported D.C. defibrillators and pacemakers were not shown, on the evidence, to be usable inside a patient's body, nor was there proof that they could be used anywhere other than the operation theatre. In the absence of such evidence, the exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus could not be denied on a narrow reading of the entry. The imported goods were therefore treated as covered by the notification, and the denial of exemption was unsustainable. en-us Tue, 08 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355773 The expression "internal use" in the customs exemption entry had to be given its ordinary meaning, and could not be restricted by an artificial construction suggested by the Revenue. The imported D.C. defibrillators and pacemakers were not shown, on the evidence, to be usable inside a patient's body, nor was there proof that they could be used anywhere other than the operation theatre. In the absence of such evidence, the exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus could not be denied on a narrow reading of the entry. The imported goods were therefore treated as covered by the notification, and the denial of exemption was unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 08 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355773