<?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>2018 (2) TMI 1135 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355714</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellants a refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) despite VAT exemption under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. The Tribunal clarified that evidence of VAT payment was not necessary for SAD refund eligibility when goods were VAT exempt, citing relevant case law. The rejection of the refund claim based on VAT exemption was deemed unjustified, and the appellants were entitled to consequential benefits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Feb 2018 06:43:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=509429" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 1135 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355714</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellants a refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) despite VAT exemption under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. The Tribunal clarified that evidence of VAT payment was not necessary for SAD refund eligibility when goods were VAT exempt, citing relevant case law. The rejection of the refund claim based on VAT exemption was deemed unjustified, and the appellants were entitled to consequential benefits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355714</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>