<?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>2020 (1) TMI 1236 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290773</link>
    <description>Notification No. 64/88-Cus. required a certified hospital to provide free treatment to specified outdoor and indoor patients, charge reasonable rates to others, and install the imported equipment; it did not impose the additional register-maintenance requirements later insisted upon by the department. On the material produced, including certificates, an installation certificate and affidavit evidence, the importer showed compliance, and the department did not establish that the equipment was not installed or used for the intended purpose. The inability to verify compliance at a much later stage, without proof of a further statutory record-keeping duty, was insufficient to deny the exemption. Denial of the exemption was therefore not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2021 13:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=625136" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 1236 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290773</link>
      <description>Notification No. 64/88-Cus. required a certified hospital to provide free treatment to specified outdoor and indoor patients, charge reasonable rates to others, and install the imported equipment; it did not impose the additional register-maintenance requirements later insisted upon by the department. On the material produced, including certificates, an installation certificate and affidavit evidence, the importer showed compliance, and the department did not establish that the equipment was not installed or used for the intended purpose. The inability to verify compliance at a much later stage, without proof of a further statutory record-keeping duty, was insufficient to deny the exemption. Denial of the exemption was therefore not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290773</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>