<?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>2012 (8) TMI 898 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170618</link>
    <description>Goods exported after manufacture using imported inputs cleared against DEPB debits were held ineligible for All Industry Rate drawback because the drawback notifications expressly excluded products manufactured or exported availing the DEPB Scheme. The fact that the exports were filed on drawback shipping bills did not override that exclusion, and circulars on average-based drawback or actual duty incidence could not expand the notification. Circular No. 57/2004-Cus. did not create drawback entitlement, and Circular No. 41/2005-Cus. on brand rate drawback was prospective only. As drawback was inadmissible, the claim for interest also failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 May 2015 18:42:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=386905" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (8) TMI 898 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170618</link>
      <description>Goods exported after manufacture using imported inputs cleared against DEPB debits were held ineligible for All Industry Rate drawback because the drawback notifications expressly excluded products manufactured or exported availing the DEPB Scheme. The fact that the exports were filed on drawback shipping bills did not override that exclusion, and circulars on average-based drawback or actual duty incidence could not expand the notification. Circular No. 57/2004-Cus. did not create drawback entitlement, and Circular No. 41/2005-Cus. on brand rate drawback was prospective only. As drawback was inadmissible, the claim for interest also failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170618</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>