<?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>2009 (8) TMI 564 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76516</link>
    <description>An export oriented unit was treated as eligible for customs exemption on imported machinery and scrap used for segregation and recycling, because the notification covered goods used for manufacture or for production-related export activity. The unit was specifically authorised to recycle imported scrap, the development authority had confirmed the activity as manufacturing, and the foreign trade policy gave manufacture a broader meaning that included segregation. The narrower Central Excise Act test was not decisive for the exemption claim, and a later public notice also supported eligibility for the relevant period. On that basis, denial of exemption, duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114723" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 564 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76516</link>
      <description>An export oriented unit was treated as eligible for customs exemption on imported machinery and scrap used for segregation and recycling, because the notification covered goods used for manufacture or for production-related export activity. The unit was specifically authorised to recycle imported scrap, the development authority had confirmed the activity as manufacturing, and the foreign trade policy gave manufacture a broader meaning that included segregation. The narrower Central Excise Act test was not decisive for the exemption claim, and a later public notice also supported eligibility for the relevant period. On that basis, denial of exemption, duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76516</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>