<?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 (7) TMI 93 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396424</link>
    <description>The tribunal determined that the imported products did not qualify as &quot;Skin Barriers Micropore Surgical Tapes&quot; for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The demand for duty was upheld for the normal period, with penalties set aside due to the appellants&#039; genuine belief in the exemption&#039;s validity. Appeals C/25676/2013 &amp;amp; C/25677/2013 were allowed, while appeal C/25625/2013 was partially allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2020 12:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=616640" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (7) TMI 93 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396424</link>
      <description>The tribunal determined that the imported products did not qualify as &quot;Skin Barriers Micropore Surgical Tapes&quot; for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The demand for duty was upheld for the normal period, with penalties set aside due to the appellants&#039; genuine belief in the exemption&#039;s validity. Appeals C/25676/2013 &amp;amp; C/25677/2013 were allowed, while appeal C/25625/2013 was partially allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396424</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>