<?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>2008 (5) TMI 65 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30409</link>
    <description>Drawback entitlement depends on the exported goods matching the drawback schedule description, and the exporter must substantiate that match with technical material where the descriptions differ. Here, &quot;heat resistant rubber tape&quot; was treated as distinct from &quot;heat resistant rubber tension tape&quot;, so the drawback claim failed. The supporting manufacturer issue was also resolved against the exporter on records and statements showing no real manufacturing facility, shifting premises, no extruder and procurement from the open market; confiscation and drawback recovery were upheld, while penalties were reduced as excessive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69065" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 65 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30409</link>
      <description>Drawback entitlement depends on the exported goods matching the drawback schedule description, and the exporter must substantiate that match with technical material where the descriptions differ. Here, &quot;heat resistant rubber tape&quot; was treated as distinct from &quot;heat resistant rubber tension tape&quot;, so the drawback claim failed. The supporting manufacturer issue was also resolved against the exporter on records and statements showing no real manufacturing facility, shifting premises, no extruder and procurement from the open market; confiscation and drawback recovery were upheld, while penalties were reduced as excessive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30409</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>