<?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>1985 (12) TMI 226 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72457</link>
    <description>Drawback on fibre content should not be denied for a merely technical defect in the shipping bill declaration where the declaration substantially conveys that no separate rebate claim was or would be made. The requirement is one that can be verified on facts, and the department should not reject the claim without inquiry or a call for proof. Given that the export goods were 100% polyester sarees made from duty-paid fibres and drawback had already been allowed on yarn and dye content, a narrow construction of the declaration was held unwarranted in light of the export incentive object. The claim was therefore allowed subject to verification of whether rebate on fibres had in fact been obtained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 May 2011 16:46:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110736" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (12) TMI 226 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72457</link>
      <description>Drawback on fibre content should not be denied for a merely technical defect in the shipping bill declaration where the declaration substantially conveys that no separate rebate claim was or would be made. The requirement is one that can be verified on facts, and the department should not reject the claim without inquiry or a call for proof. Given that the export goods were 100% polyester sarees made from duty-paid fibres and drawback had already been allowed on yarn and dye content, a narrow construction of the declaration was held unwarranted in light of the export incentive object. The claim was therefore allowed subject to verification of whether rebate on fibres had in fact been obtained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72457</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>