<?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>2002 (8) TMI 201 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51557</link>
    <description>Endoscope stents were treated as accessories of endoscopes for exemption under Sl. No. 348B of Notification No. 17/2001-Cus because they function as an adjunct or accompaniment to the main equipment and are necessary for its convenient and effective use. The relevant test was not permanent attachment or joint import, but whether the article enhances the use of the equipment. Since the materials showed that stents are deployed through the biopsy channel for therapeutic endoscopic procedures and are essential to such treatment, their separate import did not matter. The stents were therefore held eligible for exemption as accessories of endoscopes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Sep 2010 13:46:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90035" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 201 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51557</link>
      <description>Endoscope stents were treated as accessories of endoscopes for exemption under Sl. No. 348B of Notification No. 17/2001-Cus because they function as an adjunct or accompaniment to the main equipment and are necessary for its convenient and effective use. The relevant test was not permanent attachment or joint import, but whether the article enhances the use of the equipment. Since the materials showed that stents are deployed through the biopsy channel for therapeutic endoscopic procedures and are essential to such treatment, their separate import did not matter. The stents were therefore held eligible for exemption as accessories of endoscopes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51557</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>