<?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>2001 (8) TMI 758 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100386</link>
    <description>An exemption notification with independent serial entries must be applied according to the specific entry governing the goods, and entitlement cannot be denied by reading the entries as a single composite provision. A prior final Tribunal ruling in the assessee&#039;s own case had already held that the goods qualified for full exemption from special additional duty, including under the entry covering complete exemption from basic and additional customs duty. Because that unchallenged ruling was binding, the Revenue and lower authorities could not reopen or re-adjudicate the same issue. The contrary view was therefore unsustainable, and the assessee was entitled to consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 12:40:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137437" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 758 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100386</link>
      <description>An exemption notification with independent serial entries must be applied according to the specific entry governing the goods, and entitlement cannot be denied by reading the entries as a single composite provision. A prior final Tribunal ruling in the assessee&#039;s own case had already held that the goods qualified for full exemption from special additional duty, including under the entry covering complete exemption from basic and additional customs duty. Because that unchallenged ruling was binding, the Revenue and lower authorities could not reopen or re-adjudicate the same issue. The contrary view was therefore unsustainable, and the assessee was entitled to consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100386</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>