https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330645 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI allowed both appeals, setting aside the impugned order. It clarified that "goods intended for use" in an exemption notification should not be equated with actual use. As the imported goods were lost in transit beyond the appellant's control and not misused upon clearance, the benefit of the notification should not be denied. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between intention and actual use of goods, providing clarity on interpreting such terms in exemption notifications. en-us Mon, 27 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Aug 2016 12:51:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330645 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI allowed both appeals, setting aside the impugned order. It clarified that "goods intended for use" in an exemption notification should not be equated with actual use. As the imported goods were lost in transit beyond the appellant's control and not misused upon clearance, the benefit of the notification should not be denied. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between intention and actual use of goods, providing clarity on interpreting such terms in exemption notifications. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 27 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330645