<?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 (7) TMI 365 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118324</link>
    <description>Wooden boxes manufactured by a 100% export-oriented unit and cleared to a domestic tariff area buyer under the Development Commissioner&#039;s permission qualified for concessional duty under Notification No. 8/97-C.E. The permission specifically covered domestic tariff area sale of the goods, and paragraph 6.9(b) of the Export and Import Policy merely treated the same supplies as deemed exports for export-performance purposes; it did not create a separate clearance route or remove the benefit attached to authorised domestic sale. On this construction, the later accounting of the supplies as deemed exports did not defeat eligibility for the exemption, and the differential duty demand was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:29:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155321" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 365 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118324</link>
      <description>Wooden boxes manufactured by a 100% export-oriented unit and cleared to a domestic tariff area buyer under the Development Commissioner&#039;s permission qualified for concessional duty under Notification No. 8/97-C.E. The permission specifically covered domestic tariff area sale of the goods, and paragraph 6.9(b) of the Export and Import Policy merely treated the same supplies as deemed exports for export-performance purposes; it did not create a separate clearance route or remove the benefit attached to authorised domestic sale. On this construction, the later accounting of the supplies as deemed exports did not defeat eligibility for the exemption, and the differential duty demand was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118324</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>