<?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 (3) TMI 1682 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277704</link>
    <description>Imported silk fabrics were held eligible for countervailing duty exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE, as amended by Notifications No. 34/2015-CE and 37/2015-CE, because the Tribunal applied the Supreme Court&#039;s interpretation of the exemption scope and followed its own earlier decision on identical facts. On that basis, it found no reason to disturb the order extending the benefit, and the Department&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2018 06:48:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=547362" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 1682 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277704</link>
      <description>Imported silk fabrics were held eligible for countervailing duty exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE, as amended by Notifications No. 34/2015-CE and 37/2015-CE, because the Tribunal applied the Supreme Court&#039;s interpretation of the exemption scope and followed its own earlier decision on identical facts. On that basis, it found no reason to disturb the order extending the benefit, and the Department&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277704</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>