<?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 (11) TMI 305 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252988</link>
    <description>The Tribunal remanded the case to the original adjudicating authority for reconsideration regarding the denial of exemption claimed on bought out parts by the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized a thorough review of all submissions and directed a conclusion in accordance with the law, without refunding the duty already deposited by the appellants. The denial of exemption and duty demand were set aside for detailed reconsideration to determine the applicability of the exemption and duty demand on bought out parts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2014 17:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=368476" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (11) TMI 305 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252988</link>
      <description>The Tribunal remanded the case to the original adjudicating authority for reconsideration regarding the denial of exemption claimed on bought out parts by the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized a thorough review of all submissions and directed a conclusion in accordance with the law, without refunding the duty already deposited by the appellants. The denial of exemption and duty demand were set aside for detailed reconsideration to determine the applicability of the exemption and duty demand on bought out parts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252988</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>