<?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>Exemption Cannot Be Denied Due to Incorrect Tariff Entry When Issue Not Raised in SCN - N/N. 48/94-C.E.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86320</link>
    <description>CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant regarding unrecorded audio cassettes, holding that exemption under N/N. 48/94-C.E. cannot be denied based on incorrect tariff entry, especially when this issue wasn&#039;t raised in the SCN. The Tribunal affirmed that exemption benefits can be claimed at later stages, citing Share Medical Care v. Union of India [2007]. The demand for 24% interest was set aside as Section 28AB of Customs Act became effective only from 28.09.1996, while imports occurred in September 1995. The appellant was liable to pay duty at 50% rate, but no CVD was payable under the notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2025 08:41:19 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2025 08:41:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=804680" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Exemption Cannot Be Denied Due to Incorrect Tariff Entry When Issue Not Raised in SCN - N/N. 48/94-C.E.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86320</link>
      <description>CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant regarding unrecorded audio cassettes, holding that exemption under N/N. 48/94-C.E. cannot be denied based on incorrect tariff entry, especially when this issue wasn&#039;t raised in the SCN. The Tribunal affirmed that exemption benefits can be claimed at later stages, citing Share Medical Care v. Union of India [2007]. The demand for 24% interest was set aside as Section 28AB of Customs Act became effective only from 28.09.1996, while imports occurred in September 1995. The appellant was liable to pay duty at 50% rate, but no CVD was payable under the notification.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2025 08:41:19 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86320</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>