<?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 446 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115152</link>
    <description>Partial exemption under Notification No. 94/96-Cus. was available only where re-imported goods were brought back within one year of export, or within a further period extended by the Commissioner of Customs on sufficient cause. The goods were re-imported after the prescribed period, and no material showed any authorised extension. The essential condition of the notification was therefore not satisfied, and the denial of exemption was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 12:49:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152151" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 446 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115152</link>
      <description>Partial exemption under Notification No. 94/96-Cus. was available only where re-imported goods were brought back within one year of export, or within a further period extended by the Commissioner of Customs on sufficient cause. The goods were re-imported after the prescribed period, and no material showed any authorised extension. The essential condition of the notification was therefore not satisfied, and the denial of exemption was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115152</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>