<?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 (12) TMI 155 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253811</link>
    <description>Eligibility for concessional duty under Notification No. 23/2003-C.E. depended on factual proof that raw materials were indigenous, the blended yarn composition was correctly established, and the DTA clearances complied with the relevant EXIM Policy conditions. The available records did not reliably prove exclusive use of indigenous inputs, and a Chartered Accountant&#039;s certificate alone was insufficient without supporting documentary evidence maintained by the assessee. As these factual requirements had not been properly verified, and the matter had earlier been remanded, de novo examination by the adjudicating authority was necessary, with liberty to the assessee to produce evidence and the issues kept open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=370144" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (12) TMI 155 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253811</link>
      <description>Eligibility for concessional duty under Notification No. 23/2003-C.E. depended on factual proof that raw materials were indigenous, the blended yarn composition was correctly established, and the DTA clearances complied with the relevant EXIM Policy conditions. The available records did not reliably prove exclusive use of indigenous inputs, and a Chartered Accountant&#039;s certificate alone was insufficient without supporting documentary evidence maintained by the assessee. As these factual requirements had not been properly verified, and the matter had earlier been remanded, de novo examination by the adjudicating authority was necessary, with liberty to the assessee to produce evidence and the issues kept open.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253811</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>