<?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>2012 (11) TMI 585 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218570</link>
    <description>Cut flowers manufactured by a 100% Export Oriented Unit and cleared into the Domestic Tariff Area were treated as liable to duty under the relevant exemption notification. The notification was read as containing a specific machinery for DTA clearances of non-excisable articles, requiring customs duty to be paid in an amount equal to the duty leviable as if the goods were imported, which operated by reference to the inputs used in production. An amendment shifting the computation to an actual-basis method was held to be prospective and not applicable to the disputed period, and the contrary interpretation was rejected because it would make part of the clause redundant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Oct 2015 10:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=191942" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 585 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218570</link>
      <description>Cut flowers manufactured by a 100% Export Oriented Unit and cleared into the Domestic Tariff Area were treated as liable to duty under the relevant exemption notification. The notification was read as containing a specific machinery for DTA clearances of non-excisable articles, requiring customs duty to be paid in an amount equal to the duty leviable as if the goods were imported, which operated by reference to the inputs used in production. An amendment shifting the computation to an actual-basis method was held to be prospective and not applicable to the disputed period, and the contrary interpretation was rejected because it would make part of the clause redundant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218570</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>