<?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 (7) TMI 936 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755716</link>
    <description>CESTAT Ahmedabad dismissed Revenue&#039;s appeal challenging acquittal in circular trading case involving cut and polished diamonds and gold jewellery exports under Target Plus Scheme. Tribunal found identical allegations were previously rejected by CESTAT Mumbai and SC upheld genuineness of transactions. Joint DGFT accepted no circular trading occurred and redeemed advance licenses covering disputed exports. Since licensing authority confirmed export obligations were discharged lawfully, no breach of customs notification conditions existed. Revenue failed to establish mis-declaration or fraudulent benefit claims, providing no valid grounds for duty demand, confiscation, or penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Jul 2024 18:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=760533" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 936 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755716</link>
      <description>CESTAT Ahmedabad dismissed Revenue&#039;s appeal challenging acquittal in circular trading case involving cut and polished diamonds and gold jewellery exports under Target Plus Scheme. Tribunal found identical allegations were previously rejected by CESTAT Mumbai and SC upheld genuineness of transactions. Joint DGFT accepted no circular trading occurred and redeemed advance licenses covering disputed exports. Since licensing authority confirmed export obligations were discharged lawfully, no breach of customs notification conditions existed. Revenue failed to establish mis-declaration or fraudulent benefit claims, providing no valid grounds for duty demand, confiscation, or penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755716</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>