<?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 (12) TMI 511 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352242</link>
    <description>Polished marble slabs were held entitled to the concessional exemption under Notification No. 4/2006-CE because the later Board circular clarified that slabs classifiable under tariff item 6802 21 90 were also covered and that the entry was being amended to include them. Applying the settled principle that a beneficial circular operates retrospectively, the denial of exemption was unjustified. The assessee was therefore entitled to the notification benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2019 15:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=499255" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 511 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352242</link>
      <description>Polished marble slabs were held entitled to the concessional exemption under Notification No. 4/2006-CE because the later Board circular clarified that slabs classifiable under tariff item 6802 21 90 were also covered and that the entry was being amended to include them. Applying the settled principle that a beneficial circular operates retrospectively, the denial of exemption was unjustified. The assessee was therefore entitled to the notification benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352242</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>