<?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>2006 (3) TMI 154 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47664</link>
    <description>Imported ostomy products qualified for customs duty exemption under Notification No. 208/81-Cus. because clause (c) covered life-saving drugs, medicines, equipment, accessories or spare parts certified by the designated health services authority, and the prescribed certificate was produced at clearance. The authorities did not dispute the existence of the Directorate General of Health Services certificate, so the statutory condition for exemption was satisfied. On that basis, it was unnecessary to determine whether the products were used before, during or after surgery, and denial of the duty benefit was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:45:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86182" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (3) TMI 154 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47664</link>
      <description>Imported ostomy products qualified for customs duty exemption under Notification No. 208/81-Cus. because clause (c) covered life-saving drugs, medicines, equipment, accessories or spare parts certified by the designated health services authority, and the prescribed certificate was produced at clearance. The authorities did not dispute the existence of the Directorate General of Health Services certificate, so the statutory condition for exemption was satisfied. On that basis, it was unnecessary to determine whether the products were used before, during or after surgery, and denial of the duty benefit was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47664</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>