<?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 (10) TMI 1252 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760653</link>
    <description>CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed appeals challenging denial of exemption under Notification 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 for goods cleared under Served from India Scheme. The Tribunal held that appellant was entitled to exemption as the notification only required submission of PAC, which was not disputed. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider appellant&#039;s entitlement to exemption. Following its earlier decision in appellant&#039;s own case, the Tribunal ruled that non-submission of undertaking was merely procedural lapse and should not deny substantial benefit. Impugned order set aside. Personal penalty on individual also quashed as consequential to unsustainable duty demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2024 13:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=775608" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 1252 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760653</link>
      <description>CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed appeals challenging denial of exemption under Notification 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 for goods cleared under Served from India Scheme. The Tribunal held that appellant was entitled to exemption as the notification only required submission of PAC, which was not disputed. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider appellant&#039;s entitlement to exemption. Following its earlier decision in appellant&#039;s own case, the Tribunal ruled that non-submission of undertaking was merely procedural lapse and should not deny substantial benefit. Impugned order set aside. Personal penalty on individual also quashed as consequential to unsustainable duty demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760653</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>