<?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 (5) TMI 1530 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198854</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the denial of concessional CVD benefit as the imported goods did not meet the description requirements specified in Notification No. 2/2011-C.E. The appeal was rejected due to inconsistency between the goods imported and the criteria for concessional rate eligibility under the notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Feb 2018 07:28:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508358" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 1530 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198854</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the denial of concessional CVD benefit as the imported goods did not meet the description requirements specified in Notification No. 2/2011-C.E. The appeal was rejected due to inconsistency between the goods imported and the criteria for concessional rate eligibility under the notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198854</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>