<?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>2005 (12) TMI 551 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166029</link>
    <description>Entitlement to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery was considered in the context of a customs duty demand involving exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. for goods imported for a nuclear power project. The imported goods were described as project import under CTH 9801 and as having been used for setting up an atomic power plant by a unit of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.; the record also contained the required certificate of such use. On that basis, denial of the exemption was treated as prima facie unjustified, with reference to similar imports under Notification No. 51/96-Cus. and the Board&#039;s clarification. The demand was therefore regarded as prima facie unsustainable, supporting waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:47:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=363616" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 551 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166029</link>
      <description>Entitlement to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery was considered in the context of a customs duty demand involving exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. for goods imported for a nuclear power project. The imported goods were described as project import under CTH 9801 and as having been used for setting up an atomic power plant by a unit of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.; the record also contained the required certificate of such use. On that basis, denial of the exemption was treated as prima facie unjustified, with reference to similar imports under Notification No. 51/96-Cus. and the Board&#039;s clarification. The demand was therefore regarded as prima facie unsustainable, supporting waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166029</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>