<?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 (1) TMI 446 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122206</link>
    <description>On a prima facie review of the Revenue&#039;s stay request concerning duty-free import under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., the Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts certificate was treated as significant, and the Revenue failed to produce clear material to discredit it. The cited Supreme Court ruling in Louis Shoppe was considered of limited relevance because it arose under a different notification. In the absence of a clear and dependable definition of &quot;handicrafts&quot; and without convincing proof to disturb the certificate, no interim interference was warranted, and the stay application was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:15:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159195" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (1) TMI 446 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122206</link>
      <description>On a prima facie review of the Revenue&#039;s stay request concerning duty-free import under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., the Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts certificate was treated as significant, and the Revenue failed to produce clear material to discredit it. The cited Supreme Court ruling in Louis Shoppe was considered of limited relevance because it arose under a different notification. In the absence of a clear and dependable definition of &quot;handicrafts&quot; and without convincing proof to disturb the certificate, no interim interference was warranted, and the stay application was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122206</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>