<?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 (7) TMI 1071 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440798</link>
    <description>A trader could still claim CVD exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE where the notification required only that CENVAT credit on inputs had not been availed. Since it was undisputed that no such credit was taken, the factual condition for exemption was satisfied, and trader status by itself did not defeat relief. The earlier interpretation of the same notification, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, governed the issue and supported the exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2023 08:04:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=720625" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (7) TMI 1071 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440798</link>
      <description>A trader could still claim CVD exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE where the notification required only that CENVAT credit on inputs had not been availed. Since it was undisputed that no such credit was taken, the factual condition for exemption was satisfied, and trader status by itself did not defeat relief. The earlier interpretation of the same notification, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, governed the issue and supported the exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440798</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>