<?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 (9) TMI 283 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53735</link>
    <description>Exemption under customs notification is available only on strict compliance with every prescribed condition, and the claimant bears the burden of proving fulfilment. The imported medical equipment did not qualify under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. because neither the post-import obligations for free treatment and reserved beds nor the required Ministry of Health certification was shown. The alternative benefit under Notification No. 138/88-Cus. also failed because the evidence of eligible import conditions, affidavit, passport proof, and foreign-exchange payment was not produced. Duty demand and denial of exemption were therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:53:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92212" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 283 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53735</link>
      <description>Exemption under customs notification is available only on strict compliance with every prescribed condition, and the claimant bears the burden of proving fulfilment. The imported medical equipment did not qualify under Notification No. 64/88-Cus. because neither the post-import obligations for free treatment and reserved beds nor the required Ministry of Health certification was shown. The alternative benefit under Notification No. 138/88-Cus. also failed because the evidence of eligible import conditions, affidavit, passport proof, and foreign-exchange payment was not produced. Duty demand and denial of exemption were therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53735</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>