<?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 980 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346922</link>
    <description>Refund of Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus cannot be denied solely because the sales invoice was issued before the out-of-charge order, where the claimant otherwise shows compliance with the notification conditions and correlation between imported and sold goods. Supporting evidence such as VAT payment challans, sales invoices, delivery documents and a Chartered Accountant&#039;s reconciliation certificate can establish the required nexus. The Tribunal followed earlier precedent that invoice timing alone does not prove the sold goods were different from the imported goods, so rejection on that ground alone was not sustainable and the refund was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Aug 2017 07:03:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=486797" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 980 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346922</link>
      <description>Refund of Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus cannot be denied solely because the sales invoice was issued before the out-of-charge order, where the claimant otherwise shows compliance with the notification conditions and correlation between imported and sold goods. Supporting evidence such as VAT payment challans, sales invoices, delivery documents and a Chartered Accountant&#039;s reconciliation certificate can establish the required nexus. The Tribunal followed earlier precedent that invoice timing alone does not prove the sold goods were different from the imported goods, so rejection on that ground alone was not sustainable and the refund was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346922</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>