<?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>2008 (3) TMI 262 - CESTAT Bangalore</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31342</link>
    <description>A registered project contract that expressly includes operating spare parts for scheduled maintenance within the stipulated hours covers such imports for concessional assessment under the project import scheme. The fact that the guarantee period had expired and the spares were supplied on payment basis did not, by itself, take them outside the contract, and a separate agreement was required only for spares beyond the stipulated maintenance period. Because the imports also fell within the prescribed maintenance-spares limit and were shown to be required for maintenance, concessional project import treatment was admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69990" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 262 - CESTAT Bangalore</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31342</link>
      <description>A registered project contract that expressly includes operating spare parts for scheduled maintenance within the stipulated hours covers such imports for concessional assessment under the project import scheme. The fact that the guarantee period had expired and the spares were supplied on payment basis did not, by itself, take them outside the contract, and a separate agreement was required only for spares beyond the stipulated maintenance period. Because the imports also fell within the prescribed maintenance-spares limit and were shown to be required for maintenance, concessional project import treatment was admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31342</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>