<?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 the customs exemption because classification depended on the engines&#039; inherent character and ordinary or primary use as stationary machinery, not incidental post-sale installation on dumpers or locomotives. The engines therefore remained within the applicable machinery item rather than the vehicle-related item. The bond condition was satisfied when the components were used to manufacture engines; subsequent vehicle use by purchasers did not constitute a breach by the importer. A refund claim was not barred where the deposit was appropriated only after the departmental appeal failed and the writ petition followed promptly. The customs demand and appropriation were unsustainable, and refund with costs followed.</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 the customs exemption because classification depended on the engines&#039; inherent character and ordinary or primary use as stationary machinery, not incidental post-sale installation on dumpers or locomotives. The engines therefore remained within the applicable machinery item rather than the vehicle-related item. The bond condition was satisfied when the components were used to manufacture engines; subsequent vehicle use by purchasers did not constitute a breach by the importer. A refund claim was not barred where the deposit was appropriated only after the departmental appeal failed and the writ petition followed promptly. The customs demand and appropriation were unsustainable, and refund with costs followed.</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>