<?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 (6) TMI 899 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151348</link>
    <description>Clearances of shrimp feed in the Domestic Tariff Area were treated as deemed exports where the unit was authorised to sell its entire production in India and the Development Commissioner accepted the clearances for discharge of export obligation and net foreign exchange earning requirements. On that basis, the Tribunal held that customs and excise authorities could not deny the benefit of Notification No. 2/95-C.E. merely because there were no corresponding physical exports or because DTA sales allegedly exceeded 50% of FOB export value. The demand was therefore unsustainable, and the notification benefit was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2019 17:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168387" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 899 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151348</link>
      <description>Clearances of shrimp feed in the Domestic Tariff Area were treated as deemed exports where the unit was authorised to sell its entire production in India and the Development Commissioner accepted the clearances for discharge of export obligation and net foreign exchange earning requirements. On that basis, the Tribunal held that customs and excise authorities could not deny the benefit of Notification No. 2/95-C.E. merely because there were no corresponding physical exports or because DTA sales allegedly exceeded 50% of FOB export value. The demand was therefore unsustainable, and the notification benefit was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151348</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>