<?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 613 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213051</link>
    <description>Imported areca nuts classifiable under CTH 0802.90 were covered by two exemption entries in Notification No. 105/99-Cus., as amended. The operative principle applied was that where the same goods answer more than one exemption entry, the assessee is entitled to the notification that grants the greater relief. On that basis, the higher 60% exemption rate in Part B prevailed over the 50% rate in Part A, and the lower rate could not be insisted upon.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 May 2012 16:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186453" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (6) TMI 613 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213051</link>
      <description>Imported areca nuts classifiable under CTH 0802.90 were covered by two exemption entries in Notification No. 105/99-Cus., as amended. The operative principle applied was that where the same goods answer more than one exemption entry, the assessee is entitled to the notification that grants the greater relief. On that basis, the higher 60% exemption rate in Part B prevailed over the 50% rate in Part A, and the lower rate could not be insisted upon.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213051</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>