<?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>2010 (5) TMI 278 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78115</link>
    <description>A 100% Export Oriented Unit making clearances into the domestic tariff area was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 3/2001-C.E. for the relevant period, because the exemption had to be determined by the notification text in force at that time. Earlier Delhi and Gujarat High Court rulings had already held that such DTA clearances were not to be subjected to the countervailing duty treatment asserted by the department, and those rulings had also invalidated the contrary Board circular. The later explanatory amendment in Notification No. 48/2001-C.E. was treated only as prospective clarification and could not retrospectively defeat the exemption. The appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Nov 2010 22:56:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116248" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 278 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78115</link>
      <description>A 100% Export Oriented Unit making clearances into the domestic tariff area was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 3/2001-C.E. for the relevant period, because the exemption had to be determined by the notification text in force at that time. Earlier Delhi and Gujarat High Court rulings had already held that such DTA clearances were not to be subjected to the countervailing duty treatment asserted by the department, and those rulings had also invalidated the contrary Board circular. The later explanatory amendment in Notification No. 48/2001-C.E. was treated only as prospective clarification and could not retrospectively defeat the exemption. The appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78115</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>