<?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>Order remands case for fresh adjudication; importer must prove imports used exclusively for PDS supply with ERP records.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93420</link>
    <description>CESTAT set aside the Commissioner&#039;s interpretation of the exemption notification, holding that the phrase &quot;for use&quot; was incorrectly construed and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The appeal was allowed by way of remand for re-calculation of any demand; the respondent must demonstrate, including via its ERP records, that imported material was exclusively used for PDS supply. The Tribunal found the Department&#039;s consumption-allocation methodology unsupported as FIFO and based on assumptions. Issues of time-bar and penalty were held not open before the Tribunal absent a cross-appeal and are left to the Adjudicating Authority to decide if a demand is confirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2025 08:08:43 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2025 08:08:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=859112" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Order remands case for fresh adjudication; importer must prove imports used exclusively for PDS supply with ERP records.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93420</link>
      <description>CESTAT set aside the Commissioner&#039;s interpretation of the exemption notification, holding that the phrase &quot;for use&quot; was incorrectly construed and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The appeal was allowed by way of remand for re-calculation of any demand; the respondent must demonstrate, including via its ERP records, that imported material was exclusively used for PDS supply. The Tribunal found the Department&#039;s consumption-allocation methodology unsupported as FIFO and based on assumptions. Issues of time-bar and penalty were held not open before the Tribunal absent a cross-appeal and are left to the Adjudicating Authority to decide if a demand is confirmed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2025 08:08:43 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93420</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>