<?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>2000 (11) TMI 149 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45888</link>
    <description>Project import benefits were construed strictly: graphic art films were held not to fall within Entry 84.66(i) because that provision covered only the enumerated machinery, equipment and related components or manufacture inputs, and the &quot;initial setting up&quot; language could not enlarge the entry to non-listed goods. They also did not qualify under Entry 84.66(ii), which is limited to spare parts, raw materials or consumable stores imported under a registered contract and essential for maintenance of the plant or project. The Director General, Technical Development&#039;s recommendation had no binding statutory force and could not override the customs and project import requirements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:38:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84415" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 149 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45888</link>
      <description>Project import benefits were construed strictly: graphic art films were held not to fall within Entry 84.66(i) because that provision covered only the enumerated machinery, equipment and related components or manufacture inputs, and the &quot;initial setting up&quot; language could not enlarge the entry to non-listed goods. They also did not qualify under Entry 84.66(ii), which is limited to spare parts, raw materials or consumable stores imported under a registered contract and essential for maintenance of the plant or project. The Director General, Technical Development&#039;s recommendation had no binding statutory force and could not override the customs and project import requirements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45888</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>