<?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>2013 (9) TMI 102 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236669</link>
    <description>Imported stainless steel melting scrap was held to fall within the exemption for melting scrap under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus, read with Chapter 72 of the Customs Tariff, because steel and stainless steel are treated as forms of steel and the notification text, as amended, no longer excluded stainless steel from that entry. The tariff scheme and the object of reducing duty to improve raw material supply supported the broader exemption. The settled fiscal principle that an assessee may claim the more beneficial exemption where goods reasonably fit more than one entry was applied, so the Revenue could not deny the claimed benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Sep 2013 12:26:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199076" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 102 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236669</link>
      <description>Imported stainless steel melting scrap was held to fall within the exemption for melting scrap under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus, read with Chapter 72 of the Customs Tariff, because steel and stainless steel are treated as forms of steel and the notification text, as amended, no longer excluded stainless steel from that entry. The tariff scheme and the object of reducing duty to improve raw material supply supported the broader exemption. The settled fiscal principle that an assessee may claim the more beneficial exemption where goods reasonably fit more than one entry was applied, so the Revenue could not deny the claimed benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236669</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>