<?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>2020 (6) TMI 362 - CESTAT, HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395987</link>
    <description>A concessional customs exemption for crude palm oil under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus was available only if the goods were of edible grade. The text notes that the same consignments were tested against the same food-standard benchmark for importability and exemption, but the Revenue accepted the Port Health Officer&#039;s report for one purpose and then relied on a conflicting Customs Laboratory report to deny the benefit. On that footing, the contradictory stand was unsustainable because the Revenue could not accept the standard for one part of the assessment and repudiate it for the same consignments when considering exemption. The importer was therefore entitled to the exemption benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2023 16:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=615289" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (6) TMI 362 - CESTAT, HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395987</link>
      <description>A concessional customs exemption for crude palm oil under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus was available only if the goods were of edible grade. The text notes that the same consignments were tested against the same food-standard benchmark for importability and exemption, but the Revenue accepted the Port Health Officer&#039;s report for one purpose and then relied on a conflicting Customs Laboratory report to deny the benefit. On that footing, the contradictory stand was unsustainable because the Revenue could not accept the standard for one part of the assessment and repudiate it for the same consignments when considering exemption. The importer was therefore entitled to the exemption benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395987</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>