<?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 (11) TMI 768 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334750</link>
    <description>Notification No. 214/86 remained available to a job worker where the principal manufacturer exported the finished goods under bond without payment of duty. Goods exported under bond are still regarded as dutiable for this purpose, because duty is leviable even though not actually paid due to export. As the principal manufacturers had furnished the required undertakings and the export-related certificates supported use of the inputs in manufacture of export goods, the notification conditions were satisfied. The Revenue&#039;s objection that non-payment of duty by the principal manufacturer defeated the exemption was rejected, and the benefit of the notification was held admissible to the job worker.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Nov 2016 16:57:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=448502" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 768 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334750</link>
      <description>Notification No. 214/86 remained available to a job worker where the principal manufacturer exported the finished goods under bond without payment of duty. Goods exported under bond are still regarded as dutiable for this purpose, because duty is leviable even though not actually paid due to export. As the principal manufacturers had furnished the required undertakings and the export-related certificates supported use of the inputs in manufacture of export goods, the notification conditions were satisfied. The Revenue&#039;s objection that non-payment of duty by the principal manufacturer defeated the exemption was rejected, and the benefit of the notification was held admissible to the job worker.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334750</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>