<?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>2024 (8) TMI 674 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756970</link>
    <description>Imported machinery and related goods were treated as capital goods, not merely spares and parts, because they fell within the broad Foreign Trade Policy and notification definition and were brought for plant setup under a single contract. The 10% restriction was held applicable only to components, spares and parts of capital goods imported earlier, not to the goods in question. The Chartered Engineer&#039;s certificate supported their use and installation, and the earlier decision relied on was considered factually applicable. On that basis, the import qualified for exemption under Notification No. 104/2009-Cus, and the duty demand, confiscation proposal and penalty proposal were not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2024 07:06:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=763919" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 674 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756970</link>
      <description>Imported machinery and related goods were treated as capital goods, not merely spares and parts, because they fell within the broad Foreign Trade Policy and notification definition and were brought for plant setup under a single contract. The 10% restriction was held applicable only to components, spares and parts of capital goods imported earlier, not to the goods in question. The Chartered Engineer&#039;s certificate supported their use and installation, and the earlier decision relied on was considered factually applicable. On that basis, the import qualified for exemption under Notification No. 104/2009-Cus, and the duty demand, confiscation proposal and penalty proposal were not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756970</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>