<?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>2014 (1) TMI 969 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242753</link>
    <description>Continuous synthetic flooring used for indoor games was examined against an exemption limited to &quot;sports goods&quot; under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. The analysis distinguishes sports goods from sports requisites and notes that a Board circular treating synthetic tracks and artificial surfaces as sports requisites under a different customs notification could not expand the narrower excise exemption. Because the goods were flooring material used for games, and the notification did not expressly cover sports requisites or ancillary surfaces, they did not qualify for exemption. The denial of additional duty exemption was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2014 06:03:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=343192" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 969 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242753</link>
      <description>Continuous synthetic flooring used for indoor games was examined against an exemption limited to &quot;sports goods&quot; under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. The analysis distinguishes sports goods from sports requisites and notes that a Board circular treating synthetic tracks and artificial surfaces as sports requisites under a different customs notification could not expand the narrower excise exemption. Because the goods were flooring material used for games, and the notification did not expressly cover sports requisites or ancillary surfaces, they did not qualify for exemption. The denial of additional duty exemption was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242753</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>