<?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>2011 (5) TMI 56 - CESTAT,  AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203630</link>
    <description>Notification No. 32/97-Cus was available where imported goods supplied free of cost by the foreign buyer were used to manufacture goods exported back to that supplier. The notification covered imports for execution of an export order placed by the foreign supplier for jobbing, subject to re-export, use only for discharge of the export obligation, compliance with the prescribed import procedure, and satisfaction of the stated conditions. The imported goods fell within the notification&#039;s explanation and the factual record showed compliance with the export, re-export, use, and procedural requirements. The distinction between &quot;jobbing&quot; and &quot;job work&quot; was held insufficient to deny the exemption, and the duty, interest, and penalty demand could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2013 18:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=177186" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (5) TMI 56 - CESTAT,  AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203630</link>
      <description>Notification No. 32/97-Cus was available where imported goods supplied free of cost by the foreign buyer were used to manufacture goods exported back to that supplier. The notification covered imports for execution of an export order placed by the foreign supplier for jobbing, subject to re-export, use only for discharge of the export obligation, compliance with the prescribed import procedure, and satisfaction of the stated conditions. The imported goods fell within the notification&#039;s explanation and the factual record showed compliance with the export, re-export, use, and procedural requirements. The distinction between &quot;jobbing&quot; and &quot;job work&quot; was held insufficient to deny the exemption, and the duty, interest, and penalty demand could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203630</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>