<?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 161 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35122</link>
    <description>An imported anesthesia ventilatory system was treated as falling within the exemption description &quot;ventilator used with anaesthesia apparatus&quot; because it functioned as an integrated ventilator and anaesthesia apparatus. Technical literature, supplier leaflets, the user manual and expert opinions supported the integrated nature of the equipment. The exemption notification was read as not requiring the ventilator function to be predominant or separately detachable, and the goods were not shown to be a mere anaesthesia delivery system. On that basis, the exemption benefit was upheld and the departmental challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73726" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 161 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35122</link>
      <description>An imported anesthesia ventilatory system was treated as falling within the exemption description &quot;ventilator used with anaesthesia apparatus&quot; because it functioned as an integrated ventilator and anaesthesia apparatus. Technical literature, supplier leaflets, the user manual and expert opinions supported the integrated nature of the equipment. The exemption notification was read as not requiring the ventilator function to be predominant or separately detachable, and the goods were not shown to be a mere anaesthesia delivery system. On that basis, the exemption benefit was upheld and the departmental challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35122</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>