<?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 (2) TMI 702 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115949</link>
    <description>A 100% export oriented unit that failed to implement its project or satisfy the Letter of Permission conditions within the validity period was held ineligible for the benefit of Notification No. 136/94 and the associated EOU concession. On the admitted facts, the duty demand was sustained because the export and operational conditions were not fulfilled. The penalty, however, was considered excessive in the circumstances and was reduced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:21:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152947" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 702 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115949</link>
      <description>A 100% export oriented unit that failed to implement its project or satisfy the Letter of Permission conditions within the validity period was held ineligible for the benefit of Notification No. 136/94 and the associated EOU concession. On the admitted facts, the duty demand was sustained because the export and operational conditions were not fulfilled. The penalty, however, was considered excessive in the circumstances and was reduced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115949</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>