<?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>2009 (7) TMI 994 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126551</link>
    <description>Imported capital goods that were installed in the importer&#039;s factory, used to manufacture exports, and shifted only after the export obligation had been fulfilled were treated as having complied with the concessional customs duty conditions on a prima facie basis. The later movement of the goods to a group company&#039;s premises, without prior intimation to the Regional Authority and the jurisdictional Central Excise Authority, was viewed as a technical lapse because the notification did not expressly prohibit post-obligation shifting and the Handbook of Procedures contemplated such movement on intimation. On that interim view, the duty demand and penalties were considered unsustainable, and waiver of pre-deposit with stay of recovery was granted pending appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 10:50:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163444" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 994 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126551</link>
      <description>Imported capital goods that were installed in the importer&#039;s factory, used to manufacture exports, and shifted only after the export obligation had been fulfilled were treated as having complied with the concessional customs duty conditions on a prima facie basis. The later movement of the goods to a group company&#039;s premises, without prior intimation to the Regional Authority and the jurisdictional Central Excise Authority, was viewed as a technical lapse because the notification did not expressly prohibit post-obligation shifting and the Handbook of Procedures contemplated such movement on intimation. On that interim view, the duty demand and penalties were considered unsustainable, and waiver of pre-deposit with stay of recovery was granted pending appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126551</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>