<?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 (11) TMI 267 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429843</link>
    <description>Classification of Surimi under the DEPB Rate Schedule was treated as a fish product falling under Sr. No. 2/66, based on the DGFT&#039;s specific clarification in the assessee&#039;s case. That clarification also withdrew the show cause notice on the same issue, leaving no basis for the departmental view to prevail over the policy interpretation. On that footing, the article states that customs demand, interest and penalty could not be sustained and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Nov 2022 12:09:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=694971" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (11) TMI 267 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429843</link>
      <description>Classification of Surimi under the DEPB Rate Schedule was treated as a fish product falling under Sr. No. 2/66, based on the DGFT&#039;s specific clarification in the assessee&#039;s case. That clarification also withdrew the show cause notice on the same issue, leaving no basis for the departmental view to prevail over the policy interpretation. On that footing, the article states that customs demand, interest and penalty could not be sustained and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429843</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>