<?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>2023 (5) TMI 304 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437497</link>
    <description>Denial of exemption requires proof that the prescribed conditions were breached; mere third-party custody or financing arrangements do not, by themselves, establish non-road use, sale, or permanent disposal. The record showed the piling rigs were cleared for road construction projects and used for piling work connected with road-related construction, while the alleged DMRC use lacked independent support. No documentary evidence proved transfer of title within five years, and possession with another entity did not amount to a sale. The Revenue also failed to show permanent divestment of control or final disposal by the importer, so the exemption conditions were not violated and the duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 07 May 2023 22:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=712948" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (5) TMI 304 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437497</link>
      <description>Denial of exemption requires proof that the prescribed conditions were breached; mere third-party custody or financing arrangements do not, by themselves, establish non-road use, sale, or permanent disposal. The record showed the piling rigs were cleared for road construction projects and used for piling work connected with road-related construction, while the alleged DMRC use lacked independent support. No documentary evidence proved transfer of title within five years, and possession with another entity did not amount to a sale. The Revenue also failed to show permanent divestment of control or final disposal by the importer, so the exemption conditions were not violated and the duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437497</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>