<?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 (9) TMI 162 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366426</link>
    <description>Goods cleared to a 100% Export Oriented Unit were held not liable to National Calamity Contingent Duty because the issue had already been settled by binding Tribunal precedent on the same factual and legal question. The contrary decision relied on by the department was distinguished as involving a different factual context tied to an area-based exemption notification. The duty demand was therefore unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2018 07:33:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=533158" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 162 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366426</link>
      <description>Goods cleared to a 100% Export Oriented Unit were held not liable to National Calamity Contingent Duty because the issue had already been settled by binding Tribunal precedent on the same factual and legal question. The contrary decision relied on by the department was distinguished as involving a different factual context tied to an area-based exemption notification. The duty demand was therefore unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366426</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>