<?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>2010 (1) TMI 1088 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155634</link>
    <description>Duty-free procurement of inputs for manufacture of goods exported to Nepal depended on compliance with the procedure in the applicable exemption notification, not on the mere existence of a CT-1 certificate. The Tribunal noted that Notification No. 45/2001-C.E. (N.T.) governed the relevant period and that departmental knowledge or issuance of CT-1 could not override the prescribed statutory conditions for export under bond. Because the raw materials had not suffered duty and the required conditions were not fulfilled, the claim to exemption on the inputs was unsustainable, and the duty demand and penalty were maintained in favour of Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Sep 2013 11:21:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172664" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 1088 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155634</link>
      <description>Duty-free procurement of inputs for manufacture of goods exported to Nepal depended on compliance with the procedure in the applicable exemption notification, not on the mere existence of a CT-1 certificate. The Tribunal noted that Notification No. 45/2001-C.E. (N.T.) governed the relevant period and that departmental knowledge or issuance of CT-1 could not override the prescribed statutory conditions for export under bond. Because the raw materials had not suffered duty and the required conditions were not fulfilled, the claim to exemption on the inputs was unsustainable, and the duty demand and penalty were maintained in favour of Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155634</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>