<?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>2011 (12) TMI 451 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246342</link>
    <description>An exemption for DTA clearances by a 100% export-oriented undertaking under Notification No. 13/98 was available only on strict compliance with the notification and Export and Import Policy conditions. The exemption was conditional on the goods being permitted for sale in India and on fulfilment of the prescribed net foreign exchange earnings requirement under paragraph 9.9(b). As the record showed that the unit had failed to achieve positive net foreign exchange earnings, the mandatory condition was not met and the exemption claim for the disputed period failed. The demand was therefore sustained, and the appellant did not succeed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2014 17:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352963" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (12) TMI 451 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246342</link>
      <description>An exemption for DTA clearances by a 100% export-oriented undertaking under Notification No. 13/98 was available only on strict compliance with the notification and Export and Import Policy conditions. The exemption was conditional on the goods being permitted for sale in India and on fulfilment of the prescribed net foreign exchange earnings requirement under paragraph 9.9(b). As the record showed that the unit had failed to achieve positive net foreign exchange earnings, the mandatory condition was not met and the exemption claim for the disputed period failed. The demand was therefore sustained, and the appellant did not succeed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246342</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>