<?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>2016 (7) TMI 434 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329836</link>
    <description>Rebate of duty on inputs used in exported goods is available only on strict compliance with the notification governing Rule 18, including prior filing of declaration and verification of the applicable input-output ratio before export. The text distinguishes menthol crystals from menthol as separate products with different tariff classification and manufacturing processes, requiring separate declaration and approval. Because export preceded verification and fixation of the ratio for menthol crystals, compliance was treated as a mandatory statutory condition rather than a procedural formality, and the rebate claim was held inadmissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2016 11:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=434537" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 434 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329836</link>
      <description>Rebate of duty on inputs used in exported goods is available only on strict compliance with the notification governing Rule 18, including prior filing of declaration and verification of the applicable input-output ratio before export. The text distinguishes menthol crystals from menthol as separate products with different tariff classification and manufacturing processes, requiring separate declaration and approval. Because export preceded verification and fixation of the ratio for menthol crystals, compliance was treated as a mandatory statutory condition rather than a procedural formality, and the rebate claim was held inadmissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329836</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>