<?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 1527 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266252</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of the Status Holders Incentive Scrip (SHIS) scheme for imported accessories of a Steam Turbine Generator Set under Notification No.104/09. The imported accessories did not align with the specified sectors eligible for the SHIS scheme, particularly the Basic Chemical Industry targeted for technology upgradation. The Tribunal emphasized that the scheme aimed to promote technology upgradation in specific sectors, and the imported accessories for the generator set did not meet the eligibility criteria. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, affirming the denial of benefits to the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Jan 2016 10:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=402198" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 1527 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266252</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of the Status Holders Incentive Scrip (SHIS) scheme for imported accessories of a Steam Turbine Generator Set under Notification No.104/09. The imported accessories did not align with the specified sectors eligible for the SHIS scheme, particularly the Basic Chemical Industry targeted for technology upgradation. The Tribunal emphasized that the scheme aimed to promote technology upgradation in specific sectors, and the imported accessories for the generator set did not meet the eligibility criteria. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, affirming the denial of benefits to the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266252</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>