<?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 554 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122557</link>
    <description>A customs exemption otherwise available in law cannot be denied merely because it was not claimed at assessment or clearance, or was invoked only at the appellate stage. The Tribunal applied the principle that a substantive benefit is not lost on a technical objection where the assessee had claimed it under the wrong provision or later sought the correct relief. On that basis, the notification benefit was held available and the Revenue&#039;s challenge was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 16:03:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159542" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 554 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122557</link>
      <description>A customs exemption otherwise available in law cannot be denied merely because it was not claimed at assessment or clearance, or was invoked only at the appellate stage. The Tribunal applied the principle that a substantive benefit is not lost on a technical objection where the assessee had claimed it under the wrong provision or later sought the correct relief. On that basis, the notification benefit was held available and the Revenue&#039;s challenge was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122557</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>