<?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>2005 (9) TMI 144 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54509</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, ruled in favor of the appellants in a case involving the confiscation of equipment worth Rs. 6 crores imported for software development. The Tribunal found the equipment necessary for software development, rejecting the duty demand and penalties imposed. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that Customs authorities could not question the requirement once specific clearance had been granted by relevant government authorities. The Tribunal differentiated the case from a previous Supreme Court judgment, waiving pre-deposits and staying recovery pending appeal disposal. Revenue authorities were barred from interfering with the equipment&#039;s use without clearance. The stay petitions were granted under specified terms.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92986" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 144 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54509</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, ruled in favor of the appellants in a case involving the confiscation of equipment worth Rs. 6 crores imported for software development. The Tribunal found the equipment necessary for software development, rejecting the duty demand and penalties imposed. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that Customs authorities could not question the requirement once specific clearance had been granted by relevant government authorities. The Tribunal differentiated the case from a previous Supreme Court judgment, waiving pre-deposits and staying recovery pending appeal disposal. Revenue authorities were barred from interfering with the equipment&#039;s use without clearance. The stay petitions were granted under specified terms.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54509</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>