<?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>2009 (3) TMI 108 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33920</link>
    <description>The Tribunal concluded that the machinery imported did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002 as it was designed for use in the textile industry, not the leather industry as required. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the denial of exemption by lower authorities. The Tribunal highlighted that inconsistencies in granting exemptions to others and citing irrelevant legal precedents do not warrant exemption contrary to the law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72548" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 108 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33920</link>
      <description>The Tribunal concluded that the machinery imported did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002 as it was designed for use in the textile industry, not the leather industry as required. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the denial of exemption by lower authorities. The Tribunal highlighted that inconsistencies in granting exemptions to others and citing irrelevant legal precedents do not warrant exemption contrary to the law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33920</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>