<?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>2000 (3) TMI 713 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98146</link>
    <description>Imported marble under a transferred advance licence was required to be broadly in conformity with the exported product&#039;s physical specifications, including colour, size and thickness. On the facts, off-white marble was not treated as broadly conforming to the earlier pink and green marble exports, so the exemption under Notification No. 80/95-Cus. was unavailable. However, because the expression &quot;relevant&quot; had been the subject of some ambiguity, confiscation and penal consequences were considered unwarranted. The redemption fine and penalty were therefore set aside, even though the exemption claim failed on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:12:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135203" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 713 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98146</link>
      <description>Imported marble under a transferred advance licence was required to be broadly in conformity with the exported product&#039;s physical specifications, including colour, size and thickness. On the facts, off-white marble was not treated as broadly conforming to the earlier pink and green marble exports, so the exemption under Notification No. 80/95-Cus. was unavailable. However, because the expression &quot;relevant&quot; had been the subject of some ambiguity, confiscation and penal consequences were considered unwarranted. The redemption fine and penalty were therefore set aside, even though the exemption claim failed on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98146</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>