https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377891 The Tribunal upheld the revenue's argument that the imported machinery, not inherently capable of laying pavement widths of 7 meters and above without additional attachments, did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The Tribunal emphasized strict interpretation of exemption notifications, denying the importer's claim based on NHAI approval as a sub-contractor. Cross-objections filed by the respondents were dismissed, affirming the requirement for machinery to inherently meet the specified criteria for exemption. The judgment highlighted the necessity for machinery to meet exemption criteria without reliance on additional attachments, ultimately denying the exemption claim. en-us Wed, 19 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Apr 2019 08:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377891 The Tribunal upheld the revenue's argument that the imported machinery, not inherently capable of laying pavement widths of 7 meters and above without additional attachments, did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The Tribunal emphasized strict interpretation of exemption notifications, denying the importer's claim based on NHAI approval as a sub-contractor. Cross-objections filed by the respondents were dismissed, affirming the requirement for machinery to inherently meet the specified criteria for exemption. The judgment highlighted the necessity for machinery to meet exemption criteria without reliance on additional attachments, ultimately denying the exemption claim. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 19 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377891