<?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 (8) TMI 177 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50133</link>
    <description>Imported data recorded on tapes fell within the broadened definition of &quot;Information Technology Software&quot; in Notification No. 20/99-Cus., because the notification covered any representation of instructions, data, sound or image recorded in machine-readable form. By omitting the earlier exclusion found in Notification No. 23/98-Cus. concerning software required for the operation of a specific machine, the later notification expanded exemption coverage and could not be restricted by importing limitations from the earlier text. The tapes were therefore entitled to exemption, and the contrary view of the Commissioner (Appeals) was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:33:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88613" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 177 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50133</link>
      <description>Imported data recorded on tapes fell within the broadened definition of &quot;Information Technology Software&quot; in Notification No. 20/99-Cus., because the notification covered any representation of instructions, data, sound or image recorded in machine-readable form. By omitting the earlier exclusion found in Notification No. 23/98-Cus. concerning software required for the operation of a specific machine, the later notification expanded exemption coverage and could not be restricted by importing limitations from the earlier text. The tapes were therefore entitled to exemption, and the contrary view of the Commissioner (Appeals) was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50133</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>