<?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 (6) TMI 350 - CESTAT, AHEMDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209964</link>
    <description>Clearances made by a 100% EOU against foreign exchange through an EEFC account were treated as physical exports under the prevailing tribunal view, so they were not subject to central excise duty. The appellate authority followed the earlier tribunal ruling on the same point and found no persuasive basis to depart from it. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed, and the duty demand was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Jul 2013 13:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183403" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (6) TMI 350 - CESTAT, AHEMDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209964</link>
      <description>Clearances made by a 100% EOU against foreign exchange through an EEFC account were treated as physical exports under the prevailing tribunal view, so they were not subject to central excise duty. The appellate authority followed the earlier tribunal ruling on the same point and found no persuasive basis to depart from it. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed, and the duty demand was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209964</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>