<?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>2003 (10) TMI 477 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110344</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found a prima facie issue regarding the Commissioner of Customs&#039; jurisdiction to raise the demand, ultimately waiving the pre-deposit of duty and penalty pending appeal. The case centered on the interpretation of Customs rules and whether imported inputs were genuinely used for manufacturing specified final products, impacting eligibility for concessional duty under Notification No. 13/97. The appellant&#039;s argument that materials were waste and scrap satisfied the requirements for concessional duty, while the respondent contended they were separate excisable goods. The decision reflects a nuanced analysis of jurisdictional issues and the application of Customs regulations in determining duty liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:33:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147360" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 477 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110344</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found a prima facie issue regarding the Commissioner of Customs&#039; jurisdiction to raise the demand, ultimately waiving the pre-deposit of duty and penalty pending appeal. The case centered on the interpretation of Customs rules and whether imported inputs were genuinely used for manufacturing specified final products, impacting eligibility for concessional duty under Notification No. 13/97. The appellant&#039;s argument that materials were waste and scrap satisfied the requirements for concessional duty, while the respondent contended they were separate excisable goods. The decision reflects a nuanced analysis of jurisdictional issues and the application of Customs regulations in determining duty liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110344</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>