<?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 (4) TMI 924 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358813</link>
    <description>Imported goods were held not entitled to exemption from Countervailing Duty under Notification No. 30/2004-CE because the exemption was conditioned on a manufacturer not availing CENVAT credit on inputs or capital goods used in manufacture. That condition was not satisfied in the context of imported goods, so the claim to CVD exemption failed. The issue had already been decided against the appellant in its own case, and the matter was treated as no longer res integra.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2018 15:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=517297" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 924 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358813</link>
      <description>Imported goods were held not entitled to exemption from Countervailing Duty under Notification No. 30/2004-CE because the exemption was conditioned on a manufacturer not availing CENVAT credit on inputs or capital goods used in manufacture. That condition was not satisfied in the context of imported goods, so the claim to CVD exemption failed. The issue had already been decided against the appellant in its own case, and the matter was treated as no longer res integra.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358813</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>