<?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>2005 (7) TMI 417 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115577</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appellants&#039; claim for a higher drawback rate due to the lack of artistic improvement in the exported goods. However, the penalty imposed on the appellants was deemed unwarranted as they had declared the goods in good faith. The Tribunal set aside the penalty but rejected the appeal in all other aspects, emphasizing that the goods did not qualify as handicrafts artware for a higher drawback rate. The decision was rendered on 15-7-2005.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 May 2012 11:56:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152576" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 417 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115577</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appellants&#039; claim for a higher drawback rate due to the lack of artistic improvement in the exported goods. However, the penalty imposed on the appellants was deemed unwarranted as they had declared the goods in good faith. The Tribunal set aside the penalty but rejected the appeal in all other aspects, emphasizing that the goods did not qualify as handicrafts artware for a higher drawback rate. The decision was rendered on 15-7-2005.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115577</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>