<?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>2007 (8) TMI 52 -  CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2276</link>
    <description>A 100% Export Oriented Unit was held entitled to clear goods into the Domestic Tariff Area without duty against CT-2 certificates because Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), issued under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, was treated as pari materia with Notification No. 47/94-C.E. (N.T.) under the earlier regime. The tribunal followed the earlier line of decisions recognising the same benefit for EOUs and upheld the lower appellate authority&#039;s grant of exemption, so the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41646" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (8) TMI 52 -  CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2276</link>
      <description>A 100% Export Oriented Unit was held entitled to clear goods into the Domestic Tariff Area without duty against CT-2 certificates because Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), issued under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, was treated as pari materia with Notification No. 47/94-C.E. (N.T.) under the earlier regime. The tribunal followed the earlier line of decisions recognising the same benefit for EOUs and upheld the lower appellate authority&#039;s grant of exemption, so the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2276</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>