<?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>2008 (7) TMI 755 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124407</link>
    <description>Duty demand on polythene pouches used for packing fresh mushrooms cleared to the domestic tariff area was held unsustainable because the Revenue failed to substantiate its factual challenge to the scope of the Development Commissioner&#039;s permission. The exemption under Notification No. 1/95-CE was treated as applicable to goods used for production, processing or packaging in the user industry, subject to Exim Policy clearance conditions, and the unit had been permitted to clear part of its production to the domestic tariff area. The Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; order was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s appeal dismissed, leaving the exemption benefit intact.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:20:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161355" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 755 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124407</link>
      <description>Duty demand on polythene pouches used for packing fresh mushrooms cleared to the domestic tariff area was held unsustainable because the Revenue failed to substantiate its factual challenge to the scope of the Development Commissioner&#039;s permission. The exemption under Notification No. 1/95-CE was treated as applicable to goods used for production, processing or packaging in the user industry, subject to Exim Policy clearance conditions, and the unit had been permitted to clear part of its production to the domestic tariff area. The Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; order was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s appeal dismissed, leaving the exemption benefit intact.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124407</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>