<?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>2006 (5) TMI 294 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118263</link>
    <description>Supplies of inputs to a 100% EOU were treated prima facie as deemed exports under the Exim Policy, and Notification No. 1/95-C.E. was also viewed as supporting exemption for removals to an EOU. On that interim basis, the Tribunal found the duty demand not sustainable at the stay stage and dispensed with pre-deposit, granting stay of recovery pending the appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:35:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155260" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (5) TMI 294 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118263</link>
      <description>Supplies of inputs to a 100% EOU were treated prima facie as deemed exports under the Exim Policy, and Notification No. 1/95-C.E. was also viewed as supporting exemption for removals to an EOU. On that interim basis, the Tribunal found the duty demand not sustainable at the stay stage and dispensed with pre-deposit, granting stay of recovery pending the appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118263</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>