<?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 (9) TMI 453 - CESTAT,  AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76551</link>
    <description>Clearances supported by H Forms were treated as exports for computing aggregate clearances under the SSI exemption, because the circular accepted Sales Tax documents as proof where exports were made by the unit or through merchant exporters directly from the unit. The Revenue&#039;s objection was confined to alleged non-compliance with excise procedure and intimation requirements, but that procedural lapse did not displace the established export character of the clearances. As the H Forms were not doubted or rebutted, those clearances were excluded from the aggregate value, the exemption threshold was not crossed, and the duty demand failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114758" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 453 - CESTAT,  AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76551</link>
      <description>Clearances supported by H Forms were treated as exports for computing aggregate clearances under the SSI exemption, because the circular accepted Sales Tax documents as proof where exports were made by the unit or through merchant exporters directly from the unit. The Revenue&#039;s objection was confined to alleged non-compliance with excise procedure and intimation requirements, but that procedural lapse did not displace the established export character of the clearances. As the H Forms were not doubted or rebutted, those clearances were excluded from the aggregate value, the exemption threshold was not crossed, and the duty demand failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76551</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>