<?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 (8) TMI 447 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115686</link>
    <description>Gambier imported before 1-3-2003 remained covered by Notification No. 76/86-Cus. because the later amendment excluding gambier operated prospectively only. The departmental circular also clarified that the exclusion did not withdraw exemption for imports made before the effective date. On that basis, denial of the exemption for a pre-amendment import was unsustainable, and the import was entitled to the benefit of the notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2012 11:16:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152685" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (8) TMI 447 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115686</link>
      <description>Gambier imported before 1-3-2003 remained covered by Notification No. 76/86-Cus. because the later amendment excluding gambier operated prospectively only. The departmental circular also clarified that the exclusion did not withdraw exemption for imports made before the effective date. On that basis, denial of the exemption for a pre-amendment import was unsustainable, and the import was entitled to the benefit of the notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115686</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>