<?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>2007 (4) TMI 411 - CESTAT,  CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121328</link>
    <description>Customs exemption under Notification No. 81/95-Cus. was unavailable because the imported plastic hangers were not shown to have been brought against an export order placed by the foreign supplier for jobbing or similar specified operations, and the required re-export conditions were not proved. The record did not establish any export order from the supplier of the hangers, nor that the hangers were imported for job work for that supplier. The exported garments were also sent to different parties, not to the supplier of the input. Decisions cited on the meaning of &quot;jobbing&quot; were held inapplicable, and the exemption claim failed for non-fulfilment of the notification&#039;s essential conditions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Jul 2012 13:17:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=158322" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 411 - CESTAT,  CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121328</link>
      <description>Customs exemption under Notification No. 81/95-Cus. was unavailable because the imported plastic hangers were not shown to have been brought against an export order placed by the foreign supplier for jobbing or similar specified operations, and the required re-export conditions were not proved. The record did not establish any export order from the supplier of the hangers, nor that the hangers were imported for job work for that supplier. The exported garments were also sent to different parties, not to the supplier of the input. Decisions cited on the meaning of &quot;jobbing&quot; were held inapplicable, and the exemption claim failed for non-fulfilment of the notification&#039;s essential conditions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121328</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>