TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the importer was entitled to concessional customs duty under Notification No. 224/85-Cus. dated 09.07.1985 without proving that the imported goods were meant for use in the leather industry.
Analysis: The notification granted concession only for goods specified for use in the leather industry. Since the imported goods were capable of multiple uses, the importer had to establish by evidence that the consignment was in fact meant for such use. In the absence of sufficient material on that aspect, the claim to concessional duty could not be finally accepted. However, in the interest of justice, the importer was to be given an opportunity to adduce evidence on the intended use of the goods.
Conclusion: The claim for concessional duty was not upheld at this stage and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after giving the importer an opportunity to lead evidence.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
