<?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 (11) TMI 450 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120465</link>
    <description>Notification No. 32/97-Cus. was applied to allow duty-free import of raw materials for export-oriented manufacture under a job-work arrangement. The prescribed manufacturing condition was treated as satisfied where the registered job-worker, acting on behalf of the importer, complied with the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996. The act of the duly constituted agent was treated as the act of the principal, so the importer was not denied exemption merely because it did not itself manufacture the export goods. The exemption benefit was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:36:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157460" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 450 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120465</link>
      <description>Notification No. 32/97-Cus. was applied to allow duty-free import of raw materials for export-oriented manufacture under a job-work arrangement. The prescribed manufacturing condition was treated as satisfied where the registered job-worker, acting on behalf of the importer, complied with the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996. The act of the duly constituted agent was treated as the act of the principal, so the importer was not denied exemption merely because it did not itself manufacture the export goods. The exemption benefit was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120465</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>