<?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 (10) TMI 418 - CESTAT BENGLALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265143</link>
    <description>Differential treatment of the 1997-2001 and 2003-2007 periods, the scope of the exemption notifications for EOU capital goods, and the plea that stabilization, stirring and packing of hydrogen peroxide amounted to manufacture required separate examination. The appellate tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had not distinctly addressed the relevant time periods, the effect of the Development Commissioner&#039;s orders, or the manufacture defence under the Foreign Trade Policy, and the order also contained internal inconsistencies. The matter was therefore remitted to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2015 12:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400284" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 418 - CESTAT BENGLALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265143</link>
      <description>Differential treatment of the 1997-2001 and 2003-2007 periods, the scope of the exemption notifications for EOU capital goods, and the plea that stabilization, stirring and packing of hydrogen peroxide amounted to manufacture required separate examination. The appellate tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had not distinctly addressed the relevant time periods, the effect of the Development Commissioner&#039;s orders, or the manufacture defence under the Foreign Trade Policy, and the order also contained internal inconsistencies. The matter was therefore remitted to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265143</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>