<?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 (2) TMI 352 - CESTAT Bangalore</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31733</link>
    <description>Imported petroleum bitumen was held ineligible for exemption under Notification No. 84/97-Cus because the financing agency, JBIC, did not qualify as an &quot;international organisation&quot; within the notification read with the UN (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947. The project certification and the importer&#039;s bona fide belief could not cure the statutory defect in eligibility, so the exemption claim failed. Because the assessments had been kept provisional on product verification and exemption entitlement, the authorities were entitled to finalise the assessment on the clarified facts and demand the correct duty. The earlier certificate did not prevent final duty recovery.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70379" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 352 - CESTAT Bangalore</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31733</link>
      <description>Imported petroleum bitumen was held ineligible for exemption under Notification No. 84/97-Cus because the financing agency, JBIC, did not qualify as an &quot;international organisation&quot; within the notification read with the UN (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947. The project certification and the importer&#039;s bona fide belief could not cure the statutory defect in eligibility, so the exemption claim failed. Because the assessments had been kept provisional on product verification and exemption entitlement, the authorities were entitled to finalise the assessment on the clarified facts and demand the correct duty. The earlier certificate did not prevent final duty recovery.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31733</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>