<?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 (10) TMI 478 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119337</link>
    <description>Cess linked to export transactions was sustained only for consignments actually exported under the eleven shipping bills, because export had been completed and the levy was upheld on that basis. No cess could be levied on the two shipping bills that were cancelled before export, as no export took place against them. The demand was therefore restricted to the exported consignments and set aside for the cancelled shipping bills.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:57:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156334" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 478 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119337</link>
      <description>Cess linked to export transactions was sustained only for consignments actually exported under the eleven shipping bills, because export had been completed and the levy was upheld on that basis. No cess could be levied on the two shipping bills that were cancelled before export, as no export took place against them. The demand was therefore restricted to the exported consignments and set aside for the cancelled shipping bills.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119337</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>