<?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>1984 (9) TMI 61 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41577</link>
    <description>Imported component parts used to assemble diesel engines qualified for exemption under Notification No. 82/60 because classification depended on the goods&#039; inherent character and ordinary use, not on purchasers&#039; later incidental fitting of some engines on dumpers or locomotives. The bond requirement was also satisfied, since the parts were used to manufacture machinery and the importer was not responsible for the subsequent end use by buyers. The refund claim was not defeated by limitation or laches because the deposit was made for the appeal and the writ was filed promptly after appropriation. The note states that the customs demand and appropriation could not be sustained and refund was due with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 29 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 15:28:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80107" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (9) TMI 61 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41577</link>
      <description>Imported component parts used to assemble diesel engines qualified for exemption under Notification No. 82/60 because classification depended on the goods&#039; inherent character and ordinary use, not on purchasers&#039; later incidental fitting of some engines on dumpers or locomotives. The bond requirement was also satisfied, since the parts were used to manufacture machinery and the importer was not responsible for the subsequent end use by buyers. The refund claim was not defeated by limitation or laches because the deposit was made for the appeal and the writ was filed promptly after appropriation. The note states that the customs demand and appropriation could not be sustained and refund was due with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 29 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41577</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>