<?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>2019 (4) TMI 335 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377891</link>
    <description>Exemption notifications must be construed strictly, and the machine must satisfy the qualifying description on its own terms. An electronic paver finisher imported with bolt-on extensions was held not to meet the requirement of a machine capable of laying bituminous pavement of 7 metres and above because its basic width was only 3 to 6 metres and the wider capability depended on separate extensions. The notification&#039;s subcontractor condition also required the importer to be specifically named in the relevant contract; mere NHAI approval as a subcontractor was not enough. The exemption claim therefore failed on both grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2019 08:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=565674" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 335 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377891</link>
      <description>Exemption notifications must be construed strictly, and the machine must satisfy the qualifying description on its own terms. An electronic paver finisher imported with bolt-on extensions was held not to meet the requirement of a machine capable of laying bituminous pavement of 7 metres and above because its basic width was only 3 to 6 metres and the wider capability depended on separate extensions. The notification&#039;s subcontractor condition also required the importer to be specifically named in the relevant contract; mere NHAI approval as a subcontractor was not enough. The exemption claim therefore failed on both grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377891</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>