<?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 (8) TMI 32 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330648</link>
    <description>Tariff reclassification into the eight-digit system was treated as revenue-neutral and not as a change meant to alter the existing duty structure. The exemption scheme was read harmoniously with the 2005 substitution notification and the contemporaneous circular to preserve the nil-rate benefit for goods already covered by the earlier notification. The later exclusion in Notification No. 3/2005-CE was held not to extinguish the earlier exemption for the relevant goods, and the rescinding notification protected past clearances and acts done under the earlier notification. The appellant therefore remained entitled to the exemption, and the demand, interest, penalty, and impugned orders were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2016 11:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=437043" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 32 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330648</link>
      <description>Tariff reclassification into the eight-digit system was treated as revenue-neutral and not as a change meant to alter the existing duty structure. The exemption scheme was read harmoniously with the 2005 substitution notification and the contemporaneous circular to preserve the nil-rate benefit for goods already covered by the earlier notification. The later exclusion in Notification No. 3/2005-CE was held not to extinguish the earlier exemption for the relevant goods, and the rescinding notification protected past clearances and acts done under the earlier notification. The appellant therefore remained entitled to the exemption, and the demand, interest, penalty, and impugned orders were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330648</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>