<?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>2017 (1) TMI 290 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337210</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of M/s Premium Tools Pvt Ltd, an EOU, regarding the eligibility for a concessional rate of duty on domestic clearances. It held that the use of imported consumables did not disqualify the appellant from the concessional rate, emphasizing the importance of the manufacturing process in determining the classification of imported materials. The Tribunal interpreted exemption notifications to allow the use of imported consumables, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s argument. It concluded that the appellant&#039;s compliance with excise duty conditions for EOUs was proper, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2018 10:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454166" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 290 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337210</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of M/s Premium Tools Pvt Ltd, an EOU, regarding the eligibility for a concessional rate of duty on domestic clearances. It held that the use of imported consumables did not disqualify the appellant from the concessional rate, emphasizing the importance of the manufacturing process in determining the classification of imported materials. The Tribunal interpreted exemption notifications to allow the use of imported consumables, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s argument. It concluded that the appellant&#039;s compliance with excise duty conditions for EOUs was proper, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337210</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>