<?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>1987 (2) TMI 382 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74683</link>
    <description>Imported raw rabbit skins were held not to qualify for exemption from countervailing duty under the cited Central Excise notifications because the exemption applied only where the goods satisfied the specified conditions, including that they were not manufactured in a factory or that no process in or in relation to manufacture was ordinarily carried on with the aid of power. Countervailing duty under section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act was therefore attracted where the imported goods corresponded to excisable goods under the Central Excise Tariff. The record did not establish either exemption condition, and a bare assertion in appeal was insufficient to prove entitlement, so the exemption claim failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:19:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=112962" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (2) TMI 382 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74683</link>
      <description>Imported raw rabbit skins were held not to qualify for exemption from countervailing duty under the cited Central Excise notifications because the exemption applied only where the goods satisfied the specified conditions, including that they were not manufactured in a factory or that no process in or in relation to manufacture was ordinarily carried on with the aid of power. Countervailing duty under section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act was therefore attracted where the imported goods corresponded to excisable goods under the Central Excise Tariff. The record did not establish either exemption condition, and a bare assertion in appeal was insufficient to prove entitlement, so the exemption claim failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74683</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>