<?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>2004 (11) TMI 353 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114592</link>
    <description>A 100% Export Oriented Unit that cleared goods to the Domestic Tariff Area under Paragraph 9.9(e) of the EXIM Policy could not later reclassify those clearances under Paragraph 9.9(b) to claim Notification No. 8/97. The notification extended concessional duty only to DTA clearances covered by specified clauses of Paragraph 9.9, and Paragraph 9.9(e) was outside that scope. Having elected to clear the goods under Paragraph 9.9(e) and issued invoices on that basis, the unit was bound by that choice and could not change the basis through a revised return. The exemption claim failed on merits, though the penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 12:16:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151591" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 353 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114592</link>
      <description>A 100% Export Oriented Unit that cleared goods to the Domestic Tariff Area under Paragraph 9.9(e) of the EXIM Policy could not later reclassify those clearances under Paragraph 9.9(b) to claim Notification No. 8/97. The notification extended concessional duty only to DTA clearances covered by specified clauses of Paragraph 9.9, and Paragraph 9.9(e) was outside that scope. Having elected to clear the goods under Paragraph 9.9(e) and issued invoices on that basis, the unit was bound by that choice and could not change the basis through a revised return. The exemption claim failed on merits, though the penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114592</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>