<?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>Cement Importer Denied Duty Concession Under N/N. 4/2006-CE for Violating Direct Purchase and Usage Requirements</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86185</link>
    <description>HC reversed CESTAT&#039;s ruling on concessional duty benefits for cement imports. Importer violated notification conditions by purchasing cement through high-sea trade from non-manufacturer instead of directly from manufacturer, and using it for manufacturing hollow bricks rather than institutional/industrial purposes. The imported cement in 50kg retail packs failed to meet N/N. 4/2006-CE requirements. HC found CESTAT&#039;s order defective for ignoring factual evidence from Bills of Entry and importer&#039;s admission. The court emphasized that mere manufacturer details in Bill of Entry were insufficient for duty concession, as notification mandated direct manufacturer purchase and specified manufacturing mode/capacity requirements. Appeal allowed, favoring Department&#039;s position on duty assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2025 08:22:12 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2025 08:22:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=803132" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Cement Importer Denied Duty Concession Under N/N. 4/2006-CE for Violating Direct Purchase and Usage Requirements</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86185</link>
      <description>HC reversed CESTAT&#039;s ruling on concessional duty benefits for cement imports. Importer violated notification conditions by purchasing cement through high-sea trade from non-manufacturer instead of directly from manufacturer, and using it for manufacturing hollow bricks rather than institutional/industrial purposes. The imported cement in 50kg retail packs failed to meet N/N. 4/2006-CE requirements. HC found CESTAT&#039;s order defective for ignoring factual evidence from Bills of Entry and importer&#039;s admission. The court emphasized that mere manufacturer details in Bill of Entry were insufficient for duty concession, as notification mandated direct manufacturer purchase and specified manufacturing mode/capacity requirements. Appeal allowed, favoring Department&#039;s position on duty assessment.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2025 08:22:12 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86185</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>