<?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 (12) TMI 472 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269168</link>
    <description>Transferee eligibility for duty exemption under Notification No. 203/92-Cus depended on non-availment of Modvat credit by the licence holder, and the department had to verify that condition. The note records that no such verification was shown, the show cause notice was vague, and the long lapse of time since the imports made remand unnecessary. On that basis, the Revenue&#039;s reliance on cited precedents did not assist its case because the controlling issue had already been settled in favour of transferees and the facts did not show availed Modvat credit. The burden was therefore not discharged, remand was declined, and the appeal was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2015 08:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=408308" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 472 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269168</link>
      <description>Transferee eligibility for duty exemption under Notification No. 203/92-Cus depended on non-availment of Modvat credit by the licence holder, and the department had to verify that condition. The note records that no such verification was shown, the show cause notice was vague, and the long lapse of time since the imports made remand unnecessary. On that basis, the Revenue&#039;s reliance on cited precedents did not assist its case because the controlling issue had already been settled in favour of transferees and the facts did not show availed Modvat credit. The burden was therefore not discharged, remand was declined, and the appeal was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269168</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>