<?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 (5) TMI 457 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379729</link>
    <description>Notification No. 10/97-CE allowed duty-free clearance of specified goods supplied to notified public funded research institutions, including DRDO. Where the original DRDO certificates contained descriptions or incorrect category references, amended certificates correcting those errors were accepted because they aligned the goods with the notified entries. For the remaining clearances, the goods were treated as the same nature of goods and not merely prototypes, so exemption could not be refused only because the original certificate described them under an incorrect category. The assessee was therefore entitled to the notification benefit, and denial of exemption was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 May 2019 07:16:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=570042" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 457 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379729</link>
      <description>Notification No. 10/97-CE allowed duty-free clearance of specified goods supplied to notified public funded research institutions, including DRDO. Where the original DRDO certificates contained descriptions or incorrect category references, amended certificates correcting those errors were accepted because they aligned the goods with the notified entries. For the remaining clearances, the goods were treated as the same nature of goods and not merely prototypes, so exemption could not be refused only because the original certificate described them under an incorrect category. The assessee was therefore entitled to the notification benefit, and denial of exemption was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379729</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>