<?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>Appellant&#039;s Export Failure: CDs/CD-Rs and Stampers Treated as Distinct Goods, Contradicting Previous Claims and Legal Requirements.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=40702</link>
    <description>100% EOU - failure to fulfill the export conditions - the appellant themselves treated CD/ CD-R and Stamper as a different goods. Now their stand that both are similar goods is contrary to their own stand and on the fact - the nature of goods i.e. stamper and the CD/ CD-R are clearly distinct.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Aug 2018 08:35:49 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Aug 2018 08:35:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=529788" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appellant&#039;s Export Failure: CDs/CD-Rs and Stampers Treated as Distinct Goods, Contradicting Previous Claims and Legal Requirements.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=40702</link>
      <description>100% EOU - failure to fulfill the export conditions - the appellant themselves treated CD/ CD-R and Stamper as a different goods. Now their stand that both are similar goods is contrary to their own stand and on the fact - the nature of goods i.e. stamper and the CD/ CD-R are clearly distinct.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Aug 2018 08:35:49 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=40702</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>