<?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 (11) TMI 730 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350851</link>
    <description>A 100% export oriented unit could claim exemption under Notification No. 2/95-CE for domestic tariff area clearances only if the statutory and EXIM Policy conditions were satisfied, including prior permission from the competent authority. Mere entitlement to operate as an export oriented unit, or simple intimation, did not replace that requirement. The policy condition was treated as substantive rather than procedural because the scheme was aimed at export promotion and foreign exchange earnings. On that basis, clearance into the domestic market without prior permission did not qualify for the exemption, and the benefit was denied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2018 14:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=496026" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 730 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350851</link>
      <description>A 100% export oriented unit could claim exemption under Notification No. 2/95-CE for domestic tariff area clearances only if the statutory and EXIM Policy conditions were satisfied, including prior permission from the competent authority. Mere entitlement to operate as an export oriented unit, or simple intimation, did not replace that requirement. The policy condition was treated as substantive rather than procedural because the scheme was aimed at export promotion and foreign exchange earnings. On that basis, clearance into the domestic market without prior permission did not qualify for the exemption, and the benefit was denied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350851</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>