<?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>2021 (8) TMI 1214 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411636</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the correct classification of the imported goods should be under CTH 4911 9990, allowing the appellant to claim full exemption from Basic Customs Duty under Notification No. 26/2000-Cus. The Tribunal&#039;s decision on the classification issue directly impacted the appellant&#039;s eligibility for the benefit under the notification, resulting in a favorable outcome for the appellant. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the Show Cause Notice issued by the Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, was without jurisdiction, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2021 09:19:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=654342" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (8) TMI 1214 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411636</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the correct classification of the imported goods should be under CTH 4911 9990, allowing the appellant to claim full exemption from Basic Customs Duty under Notification No. 26/2000-Cus. The Tribunal&#039;s decision on the classification issue directly impacted the appellant&#039;s eligibility for the benefit under the notification, resulting in a favorable outcome for the appellant. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the Show Cause Notice issued by the Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, was without jurisdiction, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411636</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>