<?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 1737 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286790</link>
    <description>Imports made after the amended exemption notifications came into force were entitled to the concessional CVD and nil SAD available on the date of import. The goods were classified under heading 9022, and no importer-specific condition was shown to attach to that exemption scheme. Assessment of the bills of entry at a higher rate did not override the operative benefit of the amended notifications, so the denial of exemption was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 15 Mar 2020 09:36:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=606899" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 1737 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286790</link>
      <description>Imports made after the amended exemption notifications came into force were entitled to the concessional CVD and nil SAD available on the date of import. The goods were classified under heading 9022, and no importer-specific condition was shown to attach to that exemption scheme. Assessment of the bills of entry at a higher rate did not override the operative benefit of the amended notifications, so the denial of exemption was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286790</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>