<?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>2015 (1) TMI 795 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255596</link>
    <description>An exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus could not be denied merely because Customs doubted a certificate issued by the Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts. The certificates were produced by the importer, and no evidence showed misrepresentation or any challenge before the competent authority; Customs could not sit in appeal over their validity. The exported goods were also found to have the character of handicraft furniture, as the record showed artistic features such as hand embellishment, hand distressing, carving and stone inlay, while the Revenue produced no expert evidence to the contrary. The exemption was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2015 11:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=374341" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (1) TMI 795 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255596</link>
      <description>An exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus could not be denied merely because Customs doubted a certificate issued by the Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts. The certificates were produced by the importer, and no evidence showed misrepresentation or any challenge before the competent authority; Customs could not sit in appeal over their validity. The exported goods were also found to have the character of handicraft furniture, as the record showed artistic features such as hand embellishment, hand distressing, carving and stone inlay, while the Revenue produced no expert evidence to the contrary. The exemption was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255596</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>