<?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 (2) TMI 1008 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189341</link>
    <description>Under the Target Plus Scheme, import of RBD palmolein oil against export of rice and wheat was held eligible for duty credit certificate benefits under Notification No. 32/2005-Cus. Broad nexus was satisfied because the imported and exported goods fell within the same product group, and later circulars could not impose a narrower requirement that the imported goods be physically used as inputs in the exported product. The alleged actual user or manufacture objection also failed, as the notification did not require Central Excise-style manufacture and the policy recognised processing such as re-packing. The scheme benefit could not therefore be denied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2017 13:30:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454326" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 1008 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189341</link>
      <description>Under the Target Plus Scheme, import of RBD palmolein oil against export of rice and wheat was held eligible for duty credit certificate benefits under Notification No. 32/2005-Cus. Broad nexus was satisfied because the imported and exported goods fell within the same product group, and later circulars could not impose a narrower requirement that the imported goods be physically used as inputs in the exported product. The alleged actual user or manufacture objection also failed, as the notification did not require Central Excise-style manufacture and the policy recognised processing such as re-packing. The scheme benefit could not therefore be denied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189341</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>