<?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 (6) TMI 675 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344404</link>
    <description>The appellant, engaged in packing/repacking and labeling/re-labeling of imported footwear, was found entitled to avail credit as the exemption under the notifications was deemed conditional, not absolute. The Tribunal held that the appellant had the option to pay duty, making the goods non-exempt, and thus credit cannot be denied. The demand of Rs. 1,96,83,096/- was set aside. Regarding the liability to pay 10% of the value of exempted goods, the demand of Rs. 47,84,763/- was set aside as the appellant demonstrated credible evidence of maintaining separate accounts. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief as the majority decision sided with the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Jun 2017 09:07:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=472385" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 675 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344404</link>
      <description>The appellant, engaged in packing/repacking and labeling/re-labeling of imported footwear, was found entitled to avail credit as the exemption under the notifications was deemed conditional, not absolute. The Tribunal held that the appellant had the option to pay duty, making the goods non-exempt, and thus credit cannot be denied. The demand of Rs. 1,96,83,096/- was set aside. Regarding the liability to pay 10% of the value of exempted goods, the demand of Rs. 47,84,763/- was set aside as the appellant demonstrated credible evidence of maintaining separate accounts. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief as the majority decision sided with the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344404</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>