<?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 (8) TMI 978 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346920</link>
    <description>Entitlement to DEPB benefit on export of shrimps depended on proof that the goods were processed in accordance with the DGFT-prescribed SION norms. The record lacked bills, job-work records, or other evidence showing that the relevant chemicals and preservatives were actually used in processing, so compliance was not established. In the absence of such proof, the claim for higher DEPB benefit could not be accepted, and the denial of the benefit was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Aug 2017 07:03:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=486795" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 978 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346920</link>
      <description>Entitlement to DEPB benefit on export of shrimps depended on proof that the goods were processed in accordance with the DGFT-prescribed SION norms. The record lacked bills, job-work records, or other evidence showing that the relevant chemicals and preservatives were actually used in processing, so compliance was not established. In the absence of such proof, the claim for higher DEPB benefit could not be accepted, and the denial of the benefit was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346920</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>