<?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 747 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344476</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities&#039; decision and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. Despite the absence of an end-use certificate, the appellant provided sufficient evidence, including raw material registers and manufacturing records, demonstrating the consumption of the imported melting scrap in the manufacturing process. The Tribunal found the lower authorities&#039; rejection of this evidence as insufficient and their insistence on the end-use certificate alone to be incorrect. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the duty demand was unjustified and ruled in favor of the appellant based on the evidentiary value of the records presented.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2017 07:01:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=473437" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 747 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344476</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities&#039; decision and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. Despite the absence of an end-use certificate, the appellant provided sufficient evidence, including raw material registers and manufacturing records, demonstrating the consumption of the imported melting scrap in the manufacturing process. The Tribunal found the lower authorities&#039; rejection of this evidence as insufficient and their insistence on the end-use certificate alone to be incorrect. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the duty demand was unjustified and ruled in favor of the appellant based on the evidentiary value of the records presented.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344476</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>