<?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 (9) TMI 1205 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348448</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE remained available for imports made before the 21.07.2015 amendment, even where the condition of non-availment of Cenvat credit was in issue. The Tribunal applied the Supreme Court principle in SRF Ltd. to the unamended notification and treated the later High Court ruling as inapplicable because it concerned the amended notification and a different legal setting. On that basis, denial of the exemption was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=490213" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 1205 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348448</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE remained available for imports made before the 21.07.2015 amendment, even where the condition of non-availment of Cenvat credit was in issue. The Tribunal applied the Supreme Court principle in SRF Ltd. to the unamended notification and treated the later High Court ruling as inapplicable because it concerned the amended notification and a different legal setting. On that basis, denial of the exemption was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348448</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>