<?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 1169 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242954</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision in a case concerning the import of saffron under a DFRC License. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Respondent, stating that quality matching was not mandatory for saffron import under the license as it was not listed in the relevant provision. The decision emphasized fitting the imported goods into the license&#039;s description, value, and quantity, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s objections and supporting the Respondent&#039;s position with backing from DGFT and C.B.E. &amp;amp; C. The Tribunal also disposed of a cross objection filed by the Respondent in support of the impugned order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jan 2014 09:52:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=343507" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 1169 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242954</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision in a case concerning the import of saffron under a DFRC License. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Respondent, stating that quality matching was not mandatory for saffron import under the license as it was not listed in the relevant provision. The decision emphasized fitting the imported goods into the license&#039;s description, value, and quantity, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s objections and supporting the Respondent&#039;s position with backing from DGFT and C.B.E. &amp;amp; C. The Tribunal also disposed of a cross objection filed by the Respondent in support of the impugned order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242954</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>