<?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>2022 (10) TMI 13 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428455</link>
    <description>Refund of special additional duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus was available only where the importer proved that the goods sold in India were the same goods that had been imported, supported by the required sale invoices and other identity-linked documentation. The claim failed because the sale invoices did not match the imported aluminum foil sizes and invoices were not produced for all claimed import sizes, leaving no reliable correlation between import and domestic sale. The cited circulars and amended notification did not displace this foundational requirement. On that basis, the refund claim was held inadmissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Oct 2022 09:28:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=692331" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (10) TMI 13 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428455</link>
      <description>Refund of special additional duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus was available only where the importer proved that the goods sold in India were the same goods that had been imported, supported by the required sale invoices and other identity-linked documentation. The claim failed because the sale invoices did not match the imported aluminum foil sizes and invoices were not produced for all claimed import sizes, leaving no reliable correlation between import and domestic sale. The cited circulars and amended notification did not displace this foundational requirement. On that basis, the refund claim was held inadmissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428455</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>