<?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 (4) TMI 338 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377894</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (A)&#039;s decision, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal. It affirmed the appellant&#039;s eligibility for exemption under notification 20/2006-Cus, as the conditions for exemption were met based on the interplay between notification 53/2003-Cus and notification 20/2006-Cus. The decision was grounded on a detailed review of the notifications and the appellant&#039;s claims, resulting in the rejection of the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2020 15:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=565679" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 338 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377894</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (A)&#039;s decision, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal. It affirmed the appellant&#039;s eligibility for exemption under notification 20/2006-Cus, as the conditions for exemption were met based on the interplay between notification 53/2003-Cus and notification 20/2006-Cus. The decision was grounded on a detailed review of the notifications and the appellant&#039;s claims, resulting in the rejection of the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377894</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>