<?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 (11) TMI 1596 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187964</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the denial of benefits under Sr. No. 9 of Notification No. 17/2001-Cus for imported single mirror gonio lens and 4 mirror mini gonio lens. The tribunal emphasized strict interpretation of exemption notifications, noting that the lenses were not explicitly included in the exemption list. The supporting letter provided did not establish their eligibility under the notification. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2016 11:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=447594" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 1596 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187964</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the denial of benefits under Sr. No. 9 of Notification No. 17/2001-Cus for imported single mirror gonio lens and 4 mirror mini gonio lens. The tribunal emphasized strict interpretation of exemption notifications, noting that the lenses were not explicitly included in the exemption list. The supporting letter provided did not establish their eligibility under the notification. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187964</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>