<?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 (6) TMI 512 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248608</link>
    <description>An exemption restricted to kerosene imported for ultimate sale through the Public Distribution System was held unavailable where supplies were made to Railways, Defence and industrial consumers, or sold beyond the quota approved by the State Government. Reading the notification with the Kerosene (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, 1993, the tribunal treated PDS sales as confined to distribution through a government-approved system and required strict proof that the quantities reached ultimate PDS beneficiaries. On the facts recorded, non-disclosure of excess sales and diversion from the approved channel justified the re-quantified customs demand and consequential penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2016 14:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=357681" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (6) TMI 512 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248608</link>
      <description>An exemption restricted to kerosene imported for ultimate sale through the Public Distribution System was held unavailable where supplies were made to Railways, Defence and industrial consumers, or sold beyond the quota approved by the State Government. Reading the notification with the Kerosene (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, 1993, the tribunal treated PDS sales as confined to distribution through a government-approved system and required strict proof that the quantities reached ultimate PDS beneficiaries. On the facts recorded, non-disclosure of excess sales and diversion from the approved channel justified the re-quantified customs demand and consequential penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248608</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>