<?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 (10) TMI 679 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238224</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi granted the appellant&#039;s stay petition, waiving the pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounting to Rs.78,53,643 imposed for the re-export of LCD panels classified under a different heading than initially imported. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the genuine intention to use the panels for manufacturing LCD televisions, despite their re-export without use. The decision highlighted the appellant&#039;s eligibility for concessional duty based on intended use, not actual use, and referenced relevant legal precedents and rules supporting the appellant&#039;s position. The stay petition was unconditionally allowed on 02.07.2013.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2013 14:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=330200" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (10) TMI 679 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238224</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi granted the appellant&#039;s stay petition, waiving the pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounting to Rs.78,53,643 imposed for the re-export of LCD panels classified under a different heading than initially imported. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the genuine intention to use the panels for manufacturing LCD televisions, despite their re-export without use. The decision highlighted the appellant&#039;s eligibility for concessional duty based on intended use, not actual use, and referenced relevant legal precedents and rules supporting the appellant&#039;s position. The stay petition was unconditionally allowed on 02.07.2013.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238224</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>