<?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 726 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116138</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. was available only where the financing body qualified as an international organisation for the purpose of the notification, read with the declaration contemplated under the United Nations Privileges and Immunities Act. The record did not establish that the Japan Bank of International Co-operation satisfied that description, and the certificate relied on could not cure the statutory ineligibility. Full exemption and total waiver of duty and penalty were therefore not justified. The record nevertheless supported limited interim relief, so the appellant was directed to make a restricted pre-deposit while the balance duty and penalty remained in abeyance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Jun 2012 15:46:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153136" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 726 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116138</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. was available only where the financing body qualified as an international organisation for the purpose of the notification, read with the declaration contemplated under the United Nations Privileges and Immunities Act. The record did not establish that the Japan Bank of International Co-operation satisfied that description, and the certificate relied on could not cure the statutory ineligibility. Full exemption and total waiver of duty and penalty were therefore not justified. The record nevertheless supported limited interim relief, so the appellant was directed to make a restricted pre-deposit while the balance duty and penalty remained in abeyance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116138</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>