<?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>2004 (12) TMI 162 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53594</link>
    <description>A thermoforming machine qualified for exemption under Notification No. 16/2000-Cus. because the project had been approved and the Ministry of Environment and Forests had issued the required certification for Non-ODS technology. The exemption conditions were satisfied once the designated expert authority confirmed that the machine was essential and exclusive for the approved production process, and the department could not reject that certification on its own reading of the manufacturer&#039;s catalogue. The absence of the word &quot;exclusively&quot; in the catalogue did not override the official approval and certificate, so the exemption was admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:49:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92071" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 162 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53594</link>
      <description>A thermoforming machine qualified for exemption under Notification No. 16/2000-Cus. because the project had been approved and the Ministry of Environment and Forests had issued the required certification for Non-ODS technology. The exemption conditions were satisfied once the designated expert authority confirmed that the machine was essential and exclusive for the approved production process, and the department could not reject that certification on its own reading of the manufacturer&#039;s catalogue. The absence of the word &quot;exclusively&quot; in the catalogue did not override the official approval and certificate, so the exemption was admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53594</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>