<?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>1989 (7) TMI 111 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42575</link>
    <description>The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed the petition regarding the classification and duty rate of imported closed circuit television lenses. The court held that the lenses were subject to duty at 100% ad valorem under Heading No. 90.02, not covered by the exemption notification for television cameras under Heading No. 85.15.1. The decision emphasized strict adherence to exemption notification language and specified duty rates, denying the petitioners&#039; argument for extending the exemption to lens components. The respondents were allowed to encash bank guarantees from the petitioners, with a set timeline for encashment and no costs awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jul 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Jun 2010 10:42:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81104" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (7) TMI 111 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42575</link>
      <description>The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed the petition regarding the classification and duty rate of imported closed circuit television lenses. The court held that the lenses were subject to duty at 100% ad valorem under Heading No. 90.02, not covered by the exemption notification for television cameras under Heading No. 85.15.1. The decision emphasized strict adherence to exemption notification language and specified duty rates, denying the petitioners&#039; argument for extending the exemption to lens components. The respondents were allowed to encash bank guarantees from the petitioners, with a set timeline for encashment and no costs awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jul 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42575</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>