<?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>2024 (1) TMI 466 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448067</link>
    <description>Foreign trade policy and customs exemption provisions were analysed on destruction of obsolete raw materials, components, capital goods and scrap in an EOU. The text states that the framework permitted destruction of obsolete or unfit goods within the unit, or outside it with Customs permission, without duty, and that a later amendment aligned the exemption notification with the policy. Prior departmental permissions and an earlier Tribunal ruling in the assessee&#039;s own matter were treated as supporting this position. Where a related challenge had not been examined on merits and arose from a preliminary rejection, remand for fresh adjudication was considered appropriate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2024 15:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=739628" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (1) TMI 466 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448067</link>
      <description>Foreign trade policy and customs exemption provisions were analysed on destruction of obsolete raw materials, components, capital goods and scrap in an EOU. The text states that the framework permitted destruction of obsolete or unfit goods within the unit, or outside it with Customs permission, without duty, and that a later amendment aligned the exemption notification with the policy. Prior departmental permissions and an earlier Tribunal ruling in the assessee&#039;s own matter were treated as supporting this position. Where a related challenge had not been examined on merits and arose from a preliminary rejection, remand for fresh adjudication was considered appropriate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448067</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>