<?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 (2) TMI 1088 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209229</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of M/s. Rishabh Instruments Pvt. Ltd., allowing their appeal against a duty demand for clearing goods to DTA without proper permission. The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 2/95-CE, as the Development Commissioner&#039;s office clarified that DTA sale entitlement is determined in totality. Additionally, the Tribunal found errors in the duty computation under the same notification, concluding that duty should be calculated based on 50% of each customs duty, not on aggregated duties. The appeal was allowed with any consequential relief necessary.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 May 2015 13:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=182681" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (2) TMI 1088 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209229</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of M/s. Rishabh Instruments Pvt. Ltd., allowing their appeal against a duty demand for clearing goods to DTA without proper permission. The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 2/95-CE, as the Development Commissioner&#039;s office clarified that DTA sale entitlement is determined in totality. Additionally, the Tribunal found errors in the duty computation under the same notification, concluding that duty should be calculated based on 50% of each customs duty, not on aggregated duties. The appeal was allowed with any consequential relief necessary.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209229</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>