<?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>2019 (1) TMI 4 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372839</link>
    <description>Duty-free procurement of inputs by a 100% EOU was upheld where the exemption notifications did not require each final product to be specifically included in the Letter of Permission before procurement, and later approval by the Development Commissioner regularised the position. Departmental recovery proceedings were also found unsustainable because the relevant products were pending approval when notice was issued, and binding circulars required the department to await a definite decision from the Development Commissioner. The demand was therefore set aside on the basis that the dispute concerned only a procedural lapse, while the substantive conditions for exemption, manufacture and export had been satisfied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Dec 2018 16:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=550381" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 4 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372839</link>
      <description>Duty-free procurement of inputs by a 100% EOU was upheld where the exemption notifications did not require each final product to be specifically included in the Letter of Permission before procurement, and later approval by the Development Commissioner regularised the position. Departmental recovery proceedings were also found unsustainable because the relevant products were pending approval when notice was issued, and binding circulars required the department to await a definite decision from the Development Commissioner. The demand was therefore set aside on the basis that the dispute concerned only a procedural lapse, while the substantive conditions for exemption, manufacture and export had been satisfied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372839</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>