<?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 (4) TMI 894 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210129</link>
    <description>PVC trays imported for packing handicrafts did not satisfy Notification No. 21/2002-Cus because the exemption covered poly film used for shrink wrapping or cling wrapping, and the imported goods were not poly film in form or description. The alternative claim under Notification No. 104/94-Cus remained open because that exemption, in force at the time of import, depended on execution of bond, re-export within the stipulated period, and verification that the same goods were exported again. As this alternative exemption had not been examined below, the factual question of re-export and identity of goods was remanded for verification, with collateral evidence being admissible to establish compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183565" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 894 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210129</link>
      <description>PVC trays imported for packing handicrafts did not satisfy Notification No. 21/2002-Cus because the exemption covered poly film used for shrink wrapping or cling wrapping, and the imported goods were not poly film in form or description. The alternative claim under Notification No. 104/94-Cus remained open because that exemption, in force at the time of import, depended on execution of bond, re-export within the stipulated period, and verification that the same goods were exported again. As this alternative exemption had not been examined below, the factual question of re-export and identity of goods was remanded for verification, with collateral evidence being admissible to establish compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210129</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>