<?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 (6) TMI 195 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54840</link>
    <description>Medical probes imported for manufacture of ultrasound scanners qualified for exemption under Notification No. 16/2000-Cus. because they were used in equipment satisfying the notified essential description and end-use. The presence of additional B-scan and M-scan facilities in the scanners did not defeat the exemption, as the notification was not to be read more narrowly than its language and did not expressly exclude such additional features. The principle applied is that exemption benefit remains available where the goods meet the core notified requirement, unless the notification specifically says otherwise. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:47:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93317" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (6) TMI 195 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54840</link>
      <description>Medical probes imported for manufacture of ultrasound scanners qualified for exemption under Notification No. 16/2000-Cus. because they were used in equipment satisfying the notified essential description and end-use. The presence of additional B-scan and M-scan facilities in the scanners did not defeat the exemption, as the notification was not to be read more narrowly than its language and did not expressly exclude such additional features. The principle applied is that exemption benefit remains available where the goods meet the core notified requirement, unless the notification specifically says otherwise. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54840</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>